i-law

Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly

COLLISION CASES IN ADMIRALTY: OF JUDGMENT IN DEFAULT AND ITS EFFECTS

Andrew Tettenborn*

Tecoil v Neptune
The twists, turns and technicalities of Admiralty law have long entranced academics and puzzled not a few of their students. The courts, by contrast, are less patient with the technicalities, especially when a party gives the impression of using them as a means of avoiding substantial justice. The latest instance of such impatience, and a commendable one, is Registrar Davison’s decision in what should have been a simple collision case, Tecoil Shipping Ltd v Neptune EHF.1
While Tecoil’s diminutive and decrepit Russian tanker Tecoil Polaris was laid up in the Albert Dock in Hull, the Poseidon, a small survey ship owned by Icelandic company Neptune EHF, ran into her. There was no doubt that the collision was Poseidon’s fault. The case was a fairly minor one, the total damage to Tecoil Polaris eventually turning out to be a bit over US$500,000.
Poseidon’s P&I insurers were RSA, acting through LM. After the casualty, they put up a US$200,000 letter of understanding (LOU) on Tecoil’s demand in order to avoid her arrest, undertaking to pay “such sum or sums as may be due to you from the owners of the ‘POSEIDON’ in respect of your said claim either by agreement between the parties hereto or by the final unappealable judgment of the English Courts …”.
Tecoil duly served an in rem claim form on Poseidon. There was no response whatever, which was hardly surprising since by then Neptune were completely insolvent. Tecoil then proceeded to seek judgment in default against Poseidon on providing a formal proof of their case. In proceedings prior to the present ones,2 Registrar Jervis Kay held that they could have it. Although CPR 61.9(2) did not cover the claimants’ situation, because they had not served a collision statement of case, there remained an inherent jurisdiction (and also jurisdiction under CPR 12) to give such judgment in any case where no defendant had taken any part at all in proceedings in rem.
Problems arose when Tecoil asked RSA to satisfy their in rem judgment under the terms of the LOU, at least to the tune of US$200,000. RSA argued (it is suggested slightly implausibly, though the point was never decided) that on a proper interpretation the indemnity would respond only to a judgment against Neptune in personam, and not


Case and comment

583

The rest of this document is only available to i-law.com online subscribers.

If you are already a subscriber, click Log In button.

Copyright © 2024 Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited. Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited is registered in England and Wales with company number 13831625 and address 5th Floor, 10 St Bride Street, London, EC4A 4AD, United Kingdom. Lloyd's List Intelligence is a trading name of Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited.

Lloyd's is the registered trademark of the Society Incorporated by the Lloyd's Act 1871 by the name of Lloyd's.