Deiulemar Compagnia Di Navigazione SpA (ID Number 395485) v The Ship “George T” [2008] FCA 577

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Deiulemar Compagnia Di Navigazione SpA (ID Number 395485) v The Ship "George T" [2008] FCA 577

ADMIRALITY – change of ownership of vessel – whether writ in rem should be renewed

Helene Roth [1980] QB 273 DEIULEMAR COMPAGNIA DI NAVIGAZIONE SpA (ID NUMBER 395485) v THE SHIP "GEORGE T"

WAD 80 of 2007

SIOPIS J

11 APRIL 2008

PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY WAD 80 of 2007

BETWEEN: DEIULEMAR COMPAGNIA DI NAVIGAZIONE SpA (ID NUMBER 395485)

Plaintiff

AND: THE SHIP "GEORGE T"

Defendant

JUDGE: SIOPIS J

DATE OF ORDER: 11 APRIL 2008

WHERE MADE: PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The plaintiff have leave to amend the Writ in terms of the plaintiff's Minute of Amended Writ in Rem, annexed to its Motion filed 1 April 2008. 2. The plaintiff file within 7 days an amended Writ in Rem in the terms of the Minute. 3. The Amended Writ in Rem be effective for service for a period of 12 months from 26 April 2008. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY WAD 80 of 2007

BETWEEN: DEIULEMAR COMPAGNIA DI NAVIGAZIONE SpA (ID NUMBER 395485)

Plaintiff

AND: THE SHIP "GEORGE T"

Defendant

JUDGE: SIOPIS J

DATE: 11 APRIL 2008

PLACE: PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application to renew a writ in rem for a further 12 months and also an application to amend the writ in rem. The amendment is to change the name of the vessel from "George T" to "Sea Coral". The cause of action pleaded in the writ in rem is a claim for damages arising from a breach of a charter party. It is alleged that the owner failed to maintain the vessel in accordance with the maintenance warranty; failed to undertake necessary repairs whilst the vessel underwent her special survey in 2004; and failed to undertake necessary repairs whilst the vessel was under repair at Zhoushan in 2006 and in Antwerp in 2007. 2 There are two grounds relied upon by counsel for the plaintiff in support of the application to amend the writ in rem and to extend it. 3 The first ground is that there has been a change of the ownership and a change of the name of the vessel since the issue of the writ in rem. The evidence shows that sometime after 1 July 2007 (the evidence is not precise as to the date) the ownership in the vessel passed to a company called Dalton Worldwide SA; and also that the name of the vessel has changed from "George T" to "Sea Coral". In the case of the Helene Roth [1980] QB 273, Sheen J said at 281, as follows: