Pan Australia Shipping Pty Ltd (Pan) was the demise charterer of one ship, the Boomerang I, and the time charterer of another, the Comandate. This dispute arose through demands by Comandate Marine Corp (Comandate Marine), the owner of the Comandate, for damages following Pan's breach and repudiation of the time charter. Comandate Marine sought to arrest the Boomerang I as a surrogate ship for the Comandate.

Held: Pan, as demise charterer, was not 'the owner' for the purposes of ss 17, 18, and 19 of the Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth) (the Act). The MV Boomerang I should be released from arrest and the writ in rem filed 23 June 2006 should be set aside.

The Court found that the general maritime claim being asserted by Comandate Marine in respect of the breach and repudiation of the time charter did not fall within the breadth of ss 17 and 18 of the Act. This was because such a claim needed to be one 'concerning' a relevant ship, which was the Comandate, not the Boomerang I. No claim in rem was possible relying on these sections.

Further, Comandate Marine relied on s 19 of the Act, which allows for the arrest of a sister ship as surrogate for the ship to which a general maritime claim originally attached.

The main point of argument was whether Pan could be considered a 'relevant person' under ss 17, 18, or 19 of the Act when it was not the owner, but the demise charterer, of the Boomerang I. In considering this issue, reference was made to the case The 'Andrea Ursula' [1973] QB 265, wherein Brandon J considered that the 1952 Arrest Convention might allow for the arrest of demise chartered ships in some instances. This notion was subject to considerable debate historically and across multiple jurisdictions, including in Australia.

The Court acknowledged the task before it as ultimately being one of simple statutory interpretation. Consideration was given to the possession and control over ships exercised by demise charterers as characteristics of ownership, including control over crew. The Court regarded there as being a clear division, however, between the idea of ownership and chartering in the Act. Ownership as a concept, over and above demise chartering, was connected to having the final word in terms of the control, dominion, and sale of the ship and connected property.

Together the background and context of the Australian Law Reform Commission Report No 33 on Civil Admiralty Jurisdiction (the basis for the Act), the case law and jurisprudence that informed its creation and the 1952 Arrest Convention contributed to the conclusion that the demise charterer and owner were not synonymous for the purposes of the Act.