Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
SOUTH AFRICA
Craig Forrest*
CASES
266. Asahi (MV) v Ramil Manzo and Six Ors 1
Associated ship arrest—basis for order for a hearing of oral evidence in relation to peregrini
The former crew members of three vessels, the MV Saetta, the MV Belita and the MV Taisetsu, claimed that they were owed wages in respect of duties performed as crew on these vessels. Each of these vessels was registered in Panama and owned by a different Panamanian company. Each of the companies had a different sole shareholder, who held all the bearer shares in each company. The directors of the all three companies were Panamanian lawyers acting purely as nominees. Two of the three vessels, as well as the MV Asahi, were managed by the same company (Fairport Commercial Shipping Ltd), a Liberian company with offices in Greece, and the third vessel, the MV Balita was managed by a Liberian-registered company (Commercial SA) from its Greek office, which operated from the same address and with the same staff as Fairport. It is the relation to the management of the crew and payment of wages in respect of these vessels’ management by the same entity that gave rise to the arrest of the MV Asahi.
The MV Asashi was arrested in Durban, South Africa, as an associated ship pursuant to s.3 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act2 in relation to each of the three ships that were first defendants in the actions brought by the crew. The association was challenged and it was agreed that the actions with respect to the MV Saetta would proceed as a test case, the determination of which would be binding in respect of the remaining cases involving the three vessels. The outcome of this application turned on whether the plaintiffs discharged the onus of proving on balance that the same party (George Kallimasias) controlled the company which owned MV Asahi and controlled the company which owned the MV Saetta at the relevant time.
Decision: Provisional order for the matter to be referred to a hearing of oral evidence on association.3
Held: (1) Section 3(6) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act4 provides that an action in rem “may be brought by the arrest of an associated ship instead of the ship in
* Professor and Director of the Marine and Shipping Law Unit, TC Beirne School of Law, University of Queensland, Australia.
1. Case No: A121/2012, 12 September 2014, High Court of South Africa (KwaZulu-Natal).
2. Act No. 105 of 1983.
3. A final order was confirmed on 15 October 2014.
4. Act No. 105 of 1983.
184