In this significant decision,1 all seven judges of the High Court of Australia delivered a joint judgment in relation to two important elements of admiralty and maritime law in Australia. First, the court held that an applicant with a mere beneficial interest in a vessel could nonetheless have the vessel arrested in an action in rem under the Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth). In this case the applicant, not being a party to a contract under which an interest in a vessel was to be transferred, wished to obtain specific performance of the contract; the court held that it could do so. Secondly, in coming to this conclusion the court widely construed the terms of the Constitutional grant of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction (as enacted in the Admiralty Act 1988) and followed United States authority to the effect that the word “maritime” in the Australian Constitution extends to contracts “touching rights and duties appertaining to commerce and navigation”.

In 1975 the appellant, Yamashita Shinnihon Steamship Co. Ltd. (“Yamashita”), and the respondent, Empire Shipping Co. Inc. (“Empire”), entered into a Joint Venture Agreement