FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Stingray Boats v Denmeade [2002] FCA 1446 ADMIRALTY – objection to jurisdiction – whether claim "is in respect of the construction of a ship" – whether writ is properly brought in Admiralty Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), s 4 STINGRAY BOATS (a firm) v PHILIP DENMEADE No Q 159 of 2002 SPENDER J BRISBANE 21 NOVEMBER 2002 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q 159 OF 2002 BETWEEN: STINGRAY BOATS (A FIRM) PLAINTIFF AND: PHILIP DENMEADE DEFENDANT JUDGE: SPENDER J DATE OF ORDER: 21 NOVEMBER 2002 WHERE MADE: BRISBANE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The objection to jurisdiction be dismissed. 2. The defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the hearing. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q 159 OF 2002 BETWEEN: STINGRAY BOATS (A FIRM) PLAINTIFF AND: PHILIP DENMEADE DEFENDANT JUDGE: SPENDER J DATE: 21 NOVEMBER 2002 PLACE: BRISBANE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 In this matter the defendant, Philip Denmeade, filed in the Registry the following submissions concerning jurisdiction: "1. The plaintiff claims the sum of $20,500 being the alleged balance due to the plaintiff for the construction of the ship. 2. This claim does not involve anything regarding the actual 'construction of the ship' such as defective construction or faulty design or work. 3. A claim of this nature would seem to be in respect of a debt due and not in respect of construction. 4. I submit that section 4(3)(n) must be in respect of the construction of a ship and that the writ is not properly brought in Admiralty. 5. I submit that a strong argument does not exist that the court has jurisdiction and, that the writ is not maintainable at law. 6. I submit this does not depend on a finding of fact." 2 As this submission indicates, the basis of the objection to jurisdiction is that the plaintiff's claim in these proceedings does not involve anything regarding the actual construction of the ship, but is rather in the nature of a debt due; that s 4(3)(n) of the Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth) ("the Act") must be in respect of the construction of a ship; and that the writ is not properly brought in Admiralty. 3 The statement of claim filed by the plaintiff in these proceedings on 10 October 2002 contains the following: "1. The plaintiff carries on business in Brisbane as a builder of small aluminium ships. 2. Between 17 April and 10 September 2002 the plaintiff assembled and built, at it [sic] business premises in Brisbane, from plans drawn by Stephen & Gravlev Pty Ltd, an aluminium single hull vessel 12m in length powered by three 225hp Yamaha outboard engines registered number 2523Q (the ship). 3. The plaintiff's part in the construction of the ship was terminated on 10 September 2002 when the ship was taken from the plaintiff's premises by one, Philip Denmeade, of flat 10, 1 Railway Parade, Westmead, Sydney, New South Wales. 4. There remains due and owing to the plaintiff by the owner or owners of the said ship the sum of $20,500.00. Particulars Contract price (incl GST $7,200) $79,200 Less moneys paid 17.04.02 20,000 26.06.02 20,000 02.08.02 30,000 19.08.02 2,000 30.08.02 1,000 73,000 Balance before extras $ 6,200 Plus extras comprising bilge system, supply 13,000 and fit front and rear door, aft toilet house and storeroom, console, canopy frame, rails, rear engine pod, dive ladders, bollards, front and rear anchor lockers, and fuel venting system Plus GST 1,300 Balance outstanding $20,500 _______ 5. I claim the following relief: a. an order that the owners of the ship pay the plaintiff the sum of $20,500 being the balance due to the plaintiff for the construction of the ship; b. interest and costs." 4 In my opinion, this is plainly a general maritime claim within s 4 of the Act. Section 4(3) provides: "A reference in this Act to a general maritime claim is a reference to: … (n) a claim in respect of the construction of a ship (including such a claim relating to a vessel before it was launched);" 5 It is, it seems to me, simply unarguable that the claim is not a claim in respect of the construction of a ship, and the submissions by Mr Denmeade lack any persuasive force at all. There is, in my view, jurisdiction in the Federal Court to entertain the claim of the plaintiff in the present proceedings and consequently the objection to jurisdiction must be dismissed. The plaintiff in the principal proceedings should have its costs of the hearing. I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Spender. Associate: Dated: 22 November 2002 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr D Smith Solicitor for the Applicant: Prentice Lawyers The Respondent appeared on his own behalf Date of Hearing: 21 November 2002 Date of Judgment: 21 November 2002