Stingray Boats v Denmeade

[2002] FCA 1446

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Stingray Boats v Denmeade [2002] FCA 1446

ADMIRALTY – objection to jurisdiction – whether claim “is in respect of the construction of a ship” – whether writ is properly brought in Admiralty

Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), s 4

STINGRAY BOATS (a firm) v PHILIP DENMEADE

No Q 159 of 2002

SPENDER J
BRISBANE
21 NOVEMBER 2002

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q 159 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	STINGRAY BOATS (A FIRM) PLAINTIFF
AND:	PHILIP DENMEADE DEFENDANT
JUDGE:	SPENDER J
DATE OF ORDER:	21 NOVEMBER 2002
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The objection to jurisdiction be dismissed.
2. The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the hearing.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q 159 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	STINGRAY BOATS (A FIRM) PLAINTIFF
AND:	PHILIP DENMEADE DEFENDANT

JUDGE:	SPENDER J
DATE:	21 NOVEMBER 2002
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter the defendant, Philip Denmeade, filed in the Registry the following submissions concerning jurisdiction:

   “1.The plaintiff claims the sum of $20,500 being the alleged balance due to the plaintiff for the construction of the ship.

   2.This claim does not involve anything regarding the actual ‘construction of the ship’ such as defective construction or faulty design or work.

   3.A claim of this nature would seem to be in respect of a debt due and not in respect of construction.

   4.I submit that section 4(3)(n) must be in respect of the construction of a ship and that the writ is not properly brought in Admiralty.

   5.I submit that a strong argument does not exist that the court has jurisdiction and, that the writ is not maintainable at law.

   6.I submit this does not depend on a finding of fact.”

2. As this submission indicates, the basis of the objection to jurisdiction is that the plaintiff’s claim in these proceedings does not involve anything regarding the actual construction of the ship, but is rather in the nature of a debt due; that s 4(3)(n) of the Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth) (“the Act”) must be in respect of the construction of a ship; and that the writ is not properly brought in Admiralty.

3. The statement of claim filed by the plaintiff in these proceedings on 10 October 2002 contains the following:

   “1.The plaintiff carries on business in Brisbane as a builder of small aluminium ships. 

   2.Between 17 April and 10 September 2002 the plaintiff assembled and built, at it [sic] business premises in Brisbane, from plans drawn by Stephen & Gravlev Pty Ltd, an aluminium single hull vessel 12m in length powered by three 225hp Yamaha outboard engines registered number 2523Q (the ship).

   3.The plaintiff’s part in the construction of the ship was terminated on 10 September 2002 when the ship was taken from the plaintiff's premises by one, Philip Denmeade, of flat 10, 1 Railway Parade, Westmead, Sydney, New South Wales. 

   4.There remains due and owing to the plaintiff by the owner or owners of the said ship the sum of $20,500.00. 

   Particulars

   Contract price (incl GST $7,200)   $79,200

   Less moneys paid           17.04.02         20,000

   26.06.0220,000

   02.08.0230,000

   19.08.02  2,000

   30.08.02           1,000  73,000

   Balance before extras  $  6,200

   Plus extras comprising bilge system, supply  13,000
           and fit front and rear door, aft toilet house
           and storeroom, console, canopy frame, rails, rear
           engine pod, dive ladders, bollards, front and
           rear anchor lockers, and fuel venting system

   Plus GST  1,300

   Balance outstanding  $20,500
     _______

   5.I claim the following relief:

   a.    an order that the owners of the ship pay the plaintiff the sum of $20,500 being the balance due to the plaintiff for the construction of the ship;

   b.    interest and costs.”

4. In my opinion, this is plainly a general maritime claim within s 4 of the Act. Section 4(3) provides:

   “A reference in this Act to a general maritime claim is a reference to:
   …

   (n)a claim in respect of the construction of a ship (including such a claim relating to a vessel before it was launched);”

5. It is, it seems to me, simply unarguable that the claim is not a claim in respect of the construction of a ship, and the submissions by Mr Denmeade lack any persuasive force at all.  There is, in my view, jurisdiction in the Federal Court to entertain the claim of the plaintiff in the present proceedings and consequently the objection to jurisdiction must be dismissed.  The plaintiff in the principal proceedings should have its costs of the hearing.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Spender.

Associate:

Dated:               22 November 2002

Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr D Smith
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Prentice Lawyers
The Respondent appeared on his own behalf
Date of Hearing:	21 November 2002
Date of Judgment:	21 November 2002