Daina Shipping Company v Te Runanga O Ngati Awa

[2012] NZHC 3411

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