Iran Amanat v Kmp Coastal Oil [1999] HCA 11

High Court of Australia Gleeson CJ McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ Iran Amanat v Kmp Coastal Oil (S22/1998) [1999] HCA 11

ORDER Appeal dismissed with costs

Cur adv vult

The Court delivered the following written judgment:—

24 March 1999 Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ

1. This appeal arose out of a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia to entertain, pursuant to s 19 of the Admiralty Act 1988 Cth (the Act), an action in rem against a surrogate ship. The challenge succeeded before Tamberlin J at first instance, who ordered that the ship, which had been arrested, be released from arrest. An appeal against that decision was upheld by the Full Court of the Federal Court (Wilcox, Burchett and Emmett JJ) [1] . The point at issue concerns the facts which, in the event of a challenge to jurisdiction, a plaintiff needs to establish and, in particular, the approach to be taken to the question whether an owner is a "relevant person", within the meaning of s 19, in relation to a general maritime claim concerning a ship.

1. KMP Coastal Oil Pty Ltd v Owners of Motor Vessel Iran Amanat (1997) 75 FCR 78

2. Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, the appellants, are the owners of a number of ships, including the Iran Chamran, the Iran Adl and the Iran Amanat. In October 1996 the respondent, KMP Coastal Oil Pte Ltd, a corporation which carries on in Singapore the business of supplying bunker fuel, commenced an action in rem against the appellants in their capacity as the owners of 85 vessels, including the three named above. At the time the Iran Amanat was in the Port of Geelong, Victoria. The writ claimed the arrest of the Iran Amanat. The vessel was arrested at Geelong.

3. The writ claimed judgment in the sum of US$150,399 together with security, damages, interest and costs. The particulars of claim were expressed as follows: