FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
OW Bunker and Trading Company Ltd A/S v “Mawashi Al Gasseem” [2005] FCA 1041
ADMIRALTY – arrest of ship – claim for payment of bunkers supplied – application for summary judgment – application unopposed.
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 190(3)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 52Federal Court Rules O 20 r 1, O 35 r 8
OW BUNKER AND TRADING COMPANY LTD A/S v THE SHIP “MAWASHI AL GASSEEM”
No SAD 146 of 2005
FINN J
ADELAIDE
26 JULY 2005
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
SAD 146 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
OW BUNKER AND TRADING COMPANY LTD A/S
PLAINTIFFAND:
THE SHIP “MAWASHI AL GASSEEM”
DEFENDANTJUDGE:
FINN J
DATE OF ORDER:
26 JULY 2005
WHERE MADE:
ADELAIDE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Judgment be given in the sum of $US639,379.60, together with interest under s 52 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, at the rate specified in O 35 r 8(a) of the Federal Court Rules.
2.Reserve the question of costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
SAD 146 OF 2005
BETWEEN:
OW BUNKER AND TRADING COMPANY LTD A/S
PLAINTIFFAND:
THE SHIP “MAWASHI AL GASSEEM”
DEFENDANT
JUDGE:
FINN J
DATE:
26 JULY 2005
PLACE:
ADELAIDE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application for summary judgment under O 20 r 1 of the Federal Court Rules (“the Rules”). Notwithstanding both that the defendant Kuwaiti Saudi Co for Livestock, Meat and Fodder has filed no defence to the statement of claim and does not oppose the application, and that the plaintiff's legal representative has deposed that in her belief the defendant has no defence to the claim, I nonetheless must be satisfied that every element in the cause of action is fully proved in the affidavits filed on the plaintiff’s behalf. I am so satisfied.
The claim is for a liquidated sum, being the unpaid purchase price together with interest, in respect of two quantities of bunker oil supplied by the plaintiff, OW Bunker and Trading Co Ltd A/S, that was delivered to the vessel, MV Mawashi Al Gasseem, on 4 February 2005. The defendant, according to the Lloyd's Register of Ships 2004-2005, is the registered owner of that vessel. The three affidavits filed by Hazel Joy Brasington exhibit copies of a Bunker delivery receipt signed by the vessel's chief engineer, an invoice in respect of the sale and an admission of debt, by what I infer to be an agent of the defendant who appears to be manager of the vessel.
The plaintiff's case is that the proper law of the contract is Danish law, the supply being on the plaintiff's terms and conditions of sale for marine bunkers which Ms Brasington deposed were, as a matter of Danish law, incorporated into and form part of the contract of sale of the bunkers on the basis of a course of dealings in which the plaintiff has, in the past, sold marine bunker fuel to the defendant. The evidence of that course of dealing, the sufficiency of which I accept, is the subject of Ms Brasington's third affidavit.
While the evidence of Danish law and its effects are a matter of fact and are to be proved accordingly, I am prepared to exercise my discretion under s 190(3) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) to permit it to be proved, as it has in this matter, by hearsay evidence.
As I earlier indicated, I am satisfied that the plaintiff's claim has been made out. I will order that judgment be given in the sum of $US639,379.60, together with interest on that judgment, under s 52 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, at the rate specified in O 35 r 8(a) of the Rules.
Reserve the question of costs.
I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Finn. Associate:
Dated: 28 July 2005
Counsel for the Plaintiff: Ms F Errington Solicitor for the Plaintiff: Thomson Playford Counsel for the Defendant: Mr I Maitland Solicitor for the Defendant: Wallmans Admiralty Marshal: Ms J House Date of Hearing: 26 July 2005 Date of Judgment: 26 July 2005
- AGLC
- Ow Bunker and Trading Company Ltd A/S v “Mawashi Al Gasseem” [2005] FCA 1041
- Case
- [2005] FCA 1041
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the terms of the contract between the parties, focusing on the obligations of each party regarding payment and delivery of the LPG. It examined whether the defendant's failure to make payment constituted a breach of contract and if the plaintiff was entitled to the full amount claimed, less any valid counterclaims. The court also reviewed the evidence provided by both parties to determine the existence and validity of any counterclaims made by the defendant. Ultimately, the court found that the defendant's obligations under the contract were not discharged by any counterclaims and that the plaintiff was entitled to the outstanding balance of the purchase price for the LPG.
In its judgment, the Federal Court held that the defendant was liable to pay the plaintiff the sum of $US639,379.60, together with interest from the date of the judgment until the date of satisfaction, in accordance with the statutory provisions. The court reserved the question of costs for a later determination. The plaintiff was thus awarded the full amount claimed, reflecting the court's finding that the defendant's contractual obligations were not offset by any valid counterclaims.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Judgment be given in the sum of $US639,379.60, together with interest under s 52 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, at the rate specified in O 35 r 8(a) of the Federal Court Rules.
2. Reserve the question of costs.
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: FINN J
Full text does not contain this section.