The Ship “Gem of Safaga” v Euroceanica (UK) Ltd

In the case of The Ship “Gem of Safaga” v Euroceanica (UK) Ltd, the dispute involved an appeal against a decision that refused to set aside a writ in rem issued against a surrogate ship. The appellant, Euroceanica (UK) Ltd, challenged the decision of the primary judge to deny the relief sought in a notice of motion. The legal issues before the court were whether a third party was the legal and beneficial owner of one-tenth of the surrogate ship, and if the relevant person was an "owner" under the relevant statutory provision.

The court examined the definition of "owner" in section 19(b) of the Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth) and concluded that it did not include a part owner. The court found that an addendum to the original Memorandum of Agreement created a new agreement whereby legal and equitable title to one-tenth of the surrogate ship passed to the third party. The court also determined that there was no resulting trust in favor of the relevant person over the one-tenth interest in the surrogate ship as both purchasers provided the purchase moneys. Furthermore, the court held that the relevant person did not have the power to dispose of its share under the Co-ownership Agreement without the consent in writing of the other party.

Based on these findings, the court allowed the appeal, holding that the primary judge erred in concluding that the relevant person was the owner of one of the ten shares in the “Gem of Safaga.” The court found that the owner (or owners) of the surrogate ship must be a relevant person, and since the relevant person was not a relevant person, the statutory provision was not satisfied. The court ordered that the writ in rem be set aside and that the ship be released from arrest. The court also noted that the orders made were pursuant to a settlement agreement between the parties. The court directed the appellant to file and serve within seven days proposed minutes of further orders reflecting these reasons together with short written submissions in support of such proposed orders. The respondent, if so advised, was to file and serve within 14 days short written submissions in response to the appellant’s submissions.