Admiralty Law Nz

An Act determining the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of the High Court of New Zealand and the District Court and jurisdiction in the high court price Vostok Shipping Co Limited v Confederation Limited [1999] NZCA 220 Proceedings in rem, Admiralty Jurisdiction, Beneficial Ownership of the Ship Maritime, Shipping and Admiralty Law in New Zealand shares a common maritime heritage with the legislation of the United Kingdom and New Zealand many similarities with the British Admiralty Act. Ocean Towing Salvage (Vanuatu) Ltd v Custom Fleet NZ Ltd [2006] NZHC 1481Quay Stevedoring Services Ltd v Enza Limited [2001] NZCA 300 The Queen v Howard Jonathan Hare [1999] NZCA 263 Fullers Bay of Islands Limited v Northland Regional Council & Ors [2001] NZCA 14 Fullers Bay of Islands Limited v Northland Regional Council & Ors [2000] NZCA 393 Keyman Trans Ltd v The Registrar of Ships. [2011] NZHC 1644 (October 31, 2011) Once a ship is stopped, there is often a prompt payment of the debt, so the ship can be released, although this is not always the case. If a claim is contested, the shipowner may make payment to the court as security for the claim so that the vessel can be released and the funds can be kept in court until the dispute has been resolved. California Bank & Trust v The Ship [2010] NZHC 349 (March 23, 2010). The Court may order the sale of vessels prior to the hearing on the merits of the case. The time it takes to receive a sales order before trial depends on the urgency of the plaintiff`s request, the rejection of the request, the existence of a ready market for the ship, and the likelihood that the ongoing costs of the arrest will exhaust the ship`s security. Arrest is possible regardless of the ship`s flag State for claims under common law maritime privileges or covered by section 4(1) of the Admiralty Act 1973. Maritime privileges apply to damage caused by a ship, rescue, land and respondent, the captain`s salaries and expenses, and the seafarers` salaries. In addition, the requirements of the Admiralty Act include: Oceanlaw New Zealand is uniquely positioned to provide its clients with expertise in the „wet“ and „dry“ aspects of the vessel trade. Our areas of activity cover several disciplines in several jurisdictions. Our practitioners are very experienced in this area of law.

CRA3 Industry Association & Anor v The Minister of Fisheries & Ors [2001] NZCA 103 Marine Protected Areas, Interference in Commercial Fisheries, Role of Ministers For more information on vessel arrests, please contact us. Sajo Oyang Corporation v Ministry of Primary Industries [2017] NZCA 182 (May 15, 2017). The High Court of New Zealand also has jurisdiction to issue freezing orders on any type of asset, and while these orders may extend to ships, the powers do not specifically apply to ships. It is more difficult to obtain a freezing order than to detain a ship: an application is usually made without notice and the plaintiff must, usually by means of a contentious hearing, prove a good argument, prove that there is a risk of dispersion of the property in question and undertake to compensate the defendant for any damage caused by the order. before a freezing order is issued. On the other hand, in the event of arrest, the applicant must file an actual procedural decision accompanied by a brief statement of the nature of the request and the remedy or remedy sought, an application for an arrest warrant and an affidavit for assistance setting out the details of the parties, the vessel and the claim. No actual hearing of the issues set out in the communication and affidavit will be conducted and the arrest warrant will be issued without a hearing. The plaintiff is required to pay compensation to the clerk, but this is limited to the cost of the arrest and does not cover the damage caused by the arrest. A ship may be arrested if the person concerned was the owner or charterer or was in the possession or control of the ship at the time the means were formed and if the action was brought was the beneficial owner or sinking of the ship. The arrest of a vessel chartered on time is not possible with regard to claims against the charterer on time.

Note 4 at the end of this version contains a list of the changes it contains. Teddy v New Zealand Police [2014] NZCA 422 (28 August 2014). Pacifica Shipping Limited v Centreport Limited [2002] NZCA 168 wharf lease, prime necessity John Phillip Dorn v Maritime Safety Authority of New Zealand & Anor [1999] NZCA 199 We have exchanged various cargo disputes for cargo owners, shippers and consignees, their bankers and insurers. This includes bulk and refrigerated loads as well as containerized goods. Freight disputes require a broad knowledge of the legal and technical nature in several jurisdictions. We are well positioned to act, with an established network of surveyors and adjusters in the Southern Hemisphere available in the short term. Westpark Boar Builders Ltd v The Ship „Bayliner 38“ [2013] NZHC 1690 (4 July 2013) Dairy Containers Ltd v Tasman Orient Line CV (New Zealand) [2004] UKPC 22 Interpretation of damage limitation clause in bill of lading, Hague Rules. Lee v Korea Line Corporation HC Auckland CIV 2011-404-001315 [2011] NZHC 75 (14 March 2011).

Ports of Auckland Limited and Others (New Zealand) [1999] UKPC 38what was included in the port company`s plan The first ship arrest in New Zealand can be quick and relatively inexpensive. It requires the filing of a notice of proceeding relating to an in rem claim (i.e., a lawsuit directly against a vessel) and an application for arrest supported by an affidavit and does not require a hearing. An obligation to bear the Chancellor`s costs is also required. The proceedings must relate to a claim which falls within the jurisdiction set out in the Admiralty Act 1973, which are listed below. The time and costs associated with maintaining the arrest and claim against the vessel and possibly obtaining a judicial sale depend on a number of factors. If all the necessary information (including translations, if necessary) is available, the procedure can be prepared and the request for arrest can be made within a short period of time after receipt of the instruction. It is then up to the court to stop the ship, which it must do once it has received the necessary documents. He influences the arrest by attaching the arrest warrant to the deck of the ship and leaving a copy to the person who appears to be responsible. The arrest is usually made within a few days of receipt of the request. Once the vessel is stopped, it is in the custody of the Registrar of the High Court and cannot be moved without the consent of the Registrar. Tasman Orient Line CV v New Zealand China Clays Ltd (SC) [2010] NZSC 37Tasman Orient Line CV v Dairy Containers Limited (The „Tasman Discoverer“) [2002] NZCA 135; [2002] 2 Lloyd`s Rep 528Tasman Orient Line CV v New Zealand China Clays Limited and others [2009] NZCA 135Teddy v New Zealand Police [2014] NZCA 422 Courts do not require counter-security.

However, a party requesting the arrest of a ship is required to pay compensation to the Registrar for costs that may be incurred by the ship to be stopped, such as port charges and crew costs.