Federal Court of Australia
CATCHWORDS SHIPPING AND NAVIGATION - admiralty jurisdiction - "claim for damage done to a ship" - whether that expression is wide enough to encompass claims on policies of insurance that indemnify ship owners against damage to their ship Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth) - ss 4(2)(a), 4(2)(b), 9(1), 9(1)(b) Cases Considered De Lovio v Boit 7 Fed Cas 418 (1815) Owners of the ship "Shin Kobe Maru" v Empire Shipping Company Inc (1994) 181 CLR 404 Sailing Ship "Blairmore" Company Ltd v Macredie [1898] AC 593 The Eschersheim [1976] 1 All ER 920 Sandford Pty Ltd v NZI Insurance Limited & Anor QG 183 of 1995 Drummond J Brisbane 22 April 1996
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) No. QG 183 of 1995 QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: SANDFORD PTY LTD Applicant AND: NZI INSURANCE LIMITED First Respondent AND: LUMLEY GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED Second Respondent MINUTES OF ORDERS JUDGE MAKING ORDER: Drummond J DATE OF ORDER: 22 April 1996 WHERE MADE: Brisbane THE COURT RULES THAT: 1. The Federal Court has jurisdiction under s. 9(1)(b) the Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth) to determine this action on a policy of marine insurance to recover damages for the insurer's failure to indemnify the insured against losses arising from damage suffered by the insured vessel. NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA) No. QG 183 of 1995 QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY ) GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: SANDFORD PTY LTD Applicant AND: NZI INSURANCE LIMITED First Respondent AND: LUMLEY GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED Second Respondent Coram: Drummond J Date: 22 April 1996 Place: Brisbane REASONS FOR JUDGMENT The question for determination is whether this Court has jurisdiction to deal with an action that arises out of a claim by an insured owner on a policy of marine insurance on a vessel. The insured vessel capsized, the owner incurred costs of salvage, towage and of repairing the vessel. The insurer has refused to indemnify the owner in respect of any of these losses. The owner alleges this is a breach of the contract of insurance. The answer to the question of jurisdiction depends on whether this claim by the owner against the insurer comes within s. 9(1)(b) the Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), i.e., on whether the present proceedings are an action on a claim for damage done to a ship.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate