IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY
CIV-2012-470-838 [2012] NZHC 3411
IN THE MATTER OF a claim for limitation under Part 7 of the
Maritime Transport Act 1994
BETWEEN DAINA SHIPPING COMPANY First Plaintiff
ANDCOSTAMARE SHIPPING COMPANY SA Second Plaintiff
ANDCIEL SHIPMANAGEMENT SA Third Plaintiff
ANDTHE SWEDISH CLUB Fourth Plaintiff
ANDTE RUNANGA O NGATI AWA First Defendant
Hearing: 7 December 2012 (Heard at Auckland)
Counsel: M Ring QC, P David and M McCarthy for the Plaintiffs
N Davidson QC, M Heard and R Makgill for the Defendants
Judgment: 14 December 2012
JUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE J (Constituting limitation fund)
This judgment was delivered by me on 14 December 2012 at 4:00 p.m. pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 1985.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
……………………………………
Counsel:
Mr M Ring QC, Barrister, Auckland and Mr P David, Barrister, Auckland
Mr N Davidson QC, Barrister, Christchurch and Mr M Heard, LeeSalmonLong, Solicitors, Auckland
Instructing Solicitors:Mr M McCarthy, Lowndes Associates, Solicitors, Auckland
Mr R Makgill, North South Environmental Law Ltd, Solicitors, Auckland
DAINA SHIPPING COMPANY V TE RUNANGA O NGATI AWA HC TAU CIV-2012-470-838 [14 December
2012]
Cont …
ANDTE RUNANGA O NGATI TE RANGI IWI TRUST
Second Defendant
ANDNEVAN LANCASTER Third Defendant
ANDALL PERSONS CLAIMING OR BEING ENTITLED TO CLAIM DAMAGES BY REASON OF THE GROUNDING OF THE CONTAINERSHIP MV RENA ON THE ASTROLABE REEF OFF THE BAY OF PLENTY, NEW ZEALAND, AT 0218
HOURS NEW ZEALAND TIME ON 5
OCTOBER 2011
[1] This judgment relates to the application by the fourth plaintiff dated 12
October 2012 for an order entitling it to constitute a limitation fund in respect of the matters, and for the purposes, referred to in the application.
[2] The third defendant filed a notice of opposition to this application. At the hearing on 7 December 2012 the third defendant withdrew its opposition. Mr Davidson QC, for the third defendant, advised that although there was no longer any opposition the third defendant did not consent to the order sought.
[3] I am satisfied that the fourth plaintiff is entitled to the order sought. There is accordingly an order in terms of the draft order filed.
[4] My reasons will follow.
Woodhouse J
- AGLC
- Daina Shipping Company v Te Runanga O Ngati Awa [2012] NZHC 3411
- Case
- [2012] NZHC 3411
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether The Swedish Club was entitled to constitute a limitation fund for the claims arising from the grounding of the MV Rena. The court had to consider the provisions of the Maritime Transport Act 1994, specifically Part 7, and determine if the conditions for establishing such a fund were met. Additionally, the court needed to assess the implications of the third defendant's opposition, which was later withdrawn, and whether the lack of consent from the third defendant affected the plaintiffs' entitlement to the fund.
Woodhouse J found that The Swedish Club was entitled to constitute the limitation fund. The judge's reasoning was based on the provisions of the Maritime Transport Act 1994 and the circumstances surrounding the incident. Although the third defendant withdrew its opposition, it did not consent to the order sought. Nevertheless, the judge concluded that the fourth plaintiff met the legal criteria for establishing the fund, and thus granted the order. The detailed reasons for the judgment will be provided in a subsequent written judgment.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
Full text does not contain this section.