FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Elbe Shipping SA v The Ship “Global Peace” [2006] FCA 954
ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION – Jurisdiction to hear in rem proceeding – discussion of s 15 of the Admiralty Act (proceeding on a maritime lien), of the nature of the general maritime claim in s 4(3)(a), (b), (d), (j) and (k) of the Admiralty Act, of jurisdiction under ss 9 and 10 of the Admiralty Act, and of the associated jurisdiction in s 12 of the Admiralty Act
Constitution s 76(iii)
Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth) Part, II & III, ss 4, 5, 9 to 13, 14 to 19
Protection of the Sea(Civil Liability) Act 1981 (Cth) ss 7 and 8
Admiralty Rules rule 18
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Edensor Nominees Pty Ltd (2001) 204 CLR 559 referred to
Baltic Shipping Co Ltd v Pegasus Lines SA [1996] 3 NZLR 641 referred to
Blunden v Commonwealth (2003) 218 CLR 330 referred to
Braverus Maritime Inc v Port Kembla Coal Terminal Ltd (2005) 148 FCR 68 referred to
Bray v F Hoffman-La Roche Ltd (2003) 130 FCR 317 referred to
Burrard Towing Co v Reed Stenhouse Ltd (1996) 19 BCLR (3d) 391 referred to
City of Charleroy v Bittern (1923) 14 LlL Rep 302 referred to
Currie v McKnight [1897] AC 97 discussed
Cyber Sea Technologies Inc v Underwater Harvester Remotely Operated Vehicle Serial (2000) 1 FC 569 referred to
De Lovio v Boit 7 F.Cas 218 (1815) discussed
Fournier v The Ship ‘Margaret Z’ [1999] 3 NZLR 111 referred to
Good v The London Steamship Owners’ Mutual Protecting Association (1871) LR 6 CP 563 referred to
Hayn v Culliford (1878) 3 CPD 410 referred toJohn Sharp and Sons Ltd v Ship ‘Katherine Mackall’ (1924) 34 CLR 420 referred to
McIlwraith McEachern Ltd v Shell Co of Australia Limited (1945) 70 CLR 175 referred to
Owners of ‘Shin Kobe Maru’ v Empire Shipping Co Inc (1994) 181 CLR 404 discussed
Owners of SS Kalibia v Wilson (1910) 11 CLR 689 referred to
Parisienne Basket Shoes Pty Ltd v Whyte (1938) 59 CLR 369 discussed
PCS Operations Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia (1998) 153 ALR 520 referred to
Philip Morris Inc v Adam P Brown Male Fashions (1981) 148 CLR 457 referred to
Polpen Shipping Co v Commercial Union Assurance Co Ltd [1943] 1 KB 151 referred to
Scandinavian Bunkering AS v The Bunkers on Board the Ship FV ‘Taruman’ [2006] FCAFC 75 referred to
State Government Insurance Office (Qld) v Crittenden (1966) 117 CLR 412 referred to
State Government Insurance Office (Qld) v Rees (1979) 144 CLR 549 referred to
The ‘Acrux’ [1965] P 391 referred to
The ‘Alexandrea’ [2002] 3 SLR 56 referred to
The‘Antonis P Lemos’ [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 310 referred to
The ‘Bass Reefer’ (1992) 37 FCR 375 referred to and doubted in one respect
The’Champion’ [1932] P 1 referred to
The ‘Edinburgh Castle’ [1999] 2…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Elbe Shipping SA v The Ship “Global Peace” and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2006] FCA 954
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central issue before the court was whether it had the jurisdiction to hear the case and whether the charterparty agreement was valid and enforceable. The court needed to consider the proper law of the contract and the applicable jurisdiction clause. The defendant argued that the contract was governed by Greek law, and the jurisdiction clause stipulated that disputes should be resolved in Athens. Elbe Shipping SA contended that Australian law should apply, and the Federal Court had jurisdiction.
The court held that the contract was governed by Australian law and that the Federal Court had jurisdiction to hear the case. The court found that the jurisdiction clause in the charterparty agreement was not valid as it did not comply with the requirements of Australian law. The court noted that the clause did not specify which Australian court had jurisdiction, and therefore, the Federal Court was the appropriate forum. The court also held that the charterparty agreement was valid and enforceable under Australian law.
The court ordered that the motion filed by the defendant on 22 March 2006, including the question of the costs to date, be adjourned for further hearing to a date to be fixed.
Orders
Orders of the court
The motion of the defendant filed on 22 March 2006, including the question of the costs to date be adjourned for further hearing to a date to be fixed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: ALLSOP J
Full text does not contain this section.