Owners of the Ship 'Shin Kobe Maru' v Empire Shipping Company Inc

The parties to this proceeding before the High Court of Australia were the Owners of the Ship 'Shin Kobe Maru' (the appellant) and Empire Shipping Company Inc (the respondent). The dispute concerned the respondent's application for leave to present argument in support of a notice of contention, which was filed outside the prescribed time limits. The respondent sought to argue that the Federal Court had jurisdiction pursuant to sections 4(3)(f) and 17 of the Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), in addition to the grounds relied upon in the courts below. The respondent had commenced an action in rem against the appellant, seeking relief arising from a joint venture agreement concerning the ship.

The primary legal issues before the High Court were whether to grant the respondent leave to present argument in support of its notice of contention, despite the late filing. This involved considering the appellant's objections, including the need to address a new constitutional question arising from an interpretation of section 76(iii) of the Constitution, which had not been notified under section 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). Furthermore, the High Court had to consider whether the respondent would require further leave to amend its pleadings to incorporate the new contention, and whether such leave might be barred by the expiration of the relevant limitation period.

The High Court considered the application for leave to present argument in support of the notice of contention. The Court noted that a conditional appearance had been entered by the respondent, which, under Order 9 rule 6(2) of the Federal Court Rules, has the effect of an unconditional appearance unless the Court orders otherwise or the application to strike out for want of jurisdiction succeeds. The Court also addressed a correction regarding the relevant New South Wales legislation, clarifying that section 22(1) of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) was the applicable provision, which excluded actions of this kind from its limitation periods. This meant the three-year period under section 37(1)(b) of the Admiralty Act would apply, raising the question of whether there was a different maritime claim, which the respondent contended was the same claim with a different basis of jurisdiction.