McConaghy v The Ship “MV2000”

In the matter of McConaghy v The Ship “MV2000”, the plaintiff sought to commence an action in rem against a ship, naming Fortitude Investments Australia Pty Ltd as the “relevant person.” The writ filed initially named the ship as the defendant, and Fortitude Investments Australia Pty Ltd entered a conditional appearance and later an unconditional appearance, describing itself as the owner of the vessel. Subsequently, the ship filed a defence and counterclaim, prompting the applicant to seek to strike out the counterclaim on the basis that it was made by the ship, which is not a legal person. The court was required to decide whether Fortitude Investments Australia Pty Ltd should be named as the second defendant.

The court considered the proper procedures for actions in rem and the necessity of naming the actual owner of the vessel as a defendant. It held that for the court to have jurisdiction over the matter, the actual owner of the vessel must be named as a defendant. The court found that Fortitude Investments Australia Pty Ltd, as the owner of the vessel, should be named as the second defendant, and the writ and statement of claim should be amended accordingly. The court ordered that Fortitude Investments Australia Pty Ltd be named as the second defendant by amending the writ and statement of claim, and that the parties file and serve the amended pleadings within specified timeframes.

The court further ordered that the costs of the application be costs in the cause. This decision ensures that the proper parties are before the court and that the action proceeds with the correct legal standing.