This was an admiralty claim brought by the plaintiff against MT Eastern Navigator and its owner, United Marine Services SA, in respect of a mortgage over the vessel. Surridge & Becheeno, a law firm in Pakistan, acting for intervenors in the action, filed an application in the suit pending under the admiralty jurisdiction for its legal fees of USD 328,689.80, to be paid from the vessel's sale proceeds. The plaintiff objected to the maintainability of this application in a suit under admiralty jurisdiction.

Held: The application for legal fees is dismissed.

The applicant argues that jurisdiction to grant the relief sought through the present application in the exercise of its admiralty jurisdiction has been conferred upon this Court under s 3(2)(r) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance 1980 (the Ordinance), which provides jurisdiction in respect of:

any claim for the forfeiture or condemnation of a ship or of goods which are being or have been carried, or have been attempted to be carried, in a ship as a Naval Prize or in violation of customary law of the sea or otherwise, or for the restoration of a ship or any such goods after seizure, or for droits of admiralty, together with any other jurisdiction for the grant of such reliefs as are provided under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1923 (XXI of 1923), any other jurisdiction which was vested in the High Court as a Court of admiralty immediately before the commencement of this Ordinance or is conferred by or under any other law and any other jurisdiction connected with ships or aircraft in respect of things done at sea which has by tradition or custom of the sea been exercised by a Court of admiralty apart from this section.

A claim of a legal firm or an advocate for services rendered in connection with an admiralty suit/proceedings is not among the claims mentioned specifically in this provision. Bringing such a claim within the scope of the provision would amount to stretching it far from its original scheme. No provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act (XXI of 1923) or any other law which conferred jurisdiction on the High Court as the Court of admiralty jurisdiction immediately before the commencement of the Ordinance conferred jurisdiction upon the Admiralty Court in respect of the claims relating to the service charges of a legal firm in admiralty proceedings. Therefore, the dispute regarding charges of the services rendered by the legal firm or advocates claimed through this application does not come within the scope of any of the provisions of s 3 of the Ordinance. No provision of the Ordinance recognises these charges as charges upon the ship/the subject matter of the suit. The present application is thus not maintainable before the Court exercising jurisdiction under the Ordinance.