The plaintiff, the Cyprus Telecommunications Authority of Nicosia, by this action in rem claims against the defendant ship the sum of CYP 1,335.366 million in respect of marine radio services rendered to the defendant ship during the months of January-June 1982 at the request of the owner and/or the master of the defendant ship and/or their servants and/or agents. According to the plaintiff's petition, such services were necessary for the maintenance of the ship and were rendered on the express and/or implied promise that such services would be paid off. The amount claimed was converted into CYP from gold francs (XFO) on the basis of which the charge for the services was made.

By leave of the Court the plaintiffs in Admiralty Action 59/82, under which the ship was arrested, were allowed to join these proceedings as interveners for the purpose of protecting their interest in the res. By their answers both the defendant ship and the interveners raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the present action on the ground that the claim does not fall within s 1 of the Administration of Justice Act 1956 (UK) (the Act), the provisions of which are applicable in Cyprus. They also deny that the services were rendered at the request of the ship, but at the request of third persons, namely, J & N Vlassopoulos Ltd and/or Vlasopoulos Shipping Enterprises SA of Piraeus, Greece, and/or their agents and not on behalf of the defendant ship. They further allege that once the defendant ship was under arrest, the services were not necessary for the maintenance of the defendant ship, and furthermore, in the answer of the defendant ship, it is alleged that such expenses could not be an encumbrance on the ship but should have formed part of Marshal's expenses.

Counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the services were rendered to the ship, irrespective of who were the owners, and that there was no dispute as to the amount of such services or to the fact that such services were rendered. He submitted that the services were rendered for the maintenance and operation of the ship and, therefore, they come within the general provisions of s 1(1) of the Act. It is an agreement, counsel submitted, relating to the use of the ship and taking into consideration the provisions of Cap 293, the Merchant Shiping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, which makes it obligatory for a ship over 1,600 tons to have satisfactory telephone installation and that such installation should be in order and usable, such services are incidental to the activities covered by s 1(1)(m) of the Act.

Counsel for the defendant ship contended that this action could not be brought in rem against the defendant ship, as the claim does not fall within the provisions of ss 1(1)(h) or 1(1)(m) of the Act and that the plaintiff could not invoke such provisions to derive jurisdiction in the matter. This is not a claim, counsel submitted, relating to the use of the defendant ship under s 1(1)(h). In any event, they do not fall within 1(1)(m), which relates to goods or materials supplied to a ship for its operation or maintenance. Furthermore, counsel contended, there is no evidence before the Court that such services were necessary either for the maintenance or operation of the defendant ship. The plaintiff rendered such services after a request from the wireless operator of the defendant ship on behalf of the owners and they were debited in the name of the person on whose behalf such services were requested. The only action that could be brought in respect of such services could have been an action in personam against the owners of the defendant ship and not against the ship in rem. In conclusion, he submitted, the plaintiff had failed to prove that such services were rendered to the owners of the defendant ship or that they were rendered upon their express instructions.

Held: Action dismissed.

The law does not give the plaintiff a maritime lien in respect of the services rendered to enable it to invoke the Admiralty jurisdiction of this Court in an action in rem under s 3(3) of the Act. For the jurisdiction of the Court to be invoked under s 3(4) the plaintiff had to prove that the ship at the time when the action was brought was beneficially owned as respects all shares therein by the person who would be liable on the claim when the cause of action arose.

According to the evidence adduced by the plaintiff and the invoices produced, the services were rendered at the request of the radio operator for the account of the persons whose names appear in the invoices, as the owners of the defendant ship. In the invoice for March 1982, the owner is described as Vlassopoulos Shipping Enterprises SA and in the rest, J & N Vlassopoulos Ltd. The defendant and the interveners denied that the ship belonged to any of the said companies and alleged that the owner was Laertis Shipping Enterprises Special Shipping SA, who mortgaged the ship to the interveners. Once the question of ownership of the ship is in issue, the burden is upon the plaintiff to prove that at the time of the institution of the action the ship was beneficially owned as respects all shares therein by either of the two companies for whose account the services were rendered, and the plaintiff could not rely on an information supplied by the radio operator of the ship, and which may be deemed as hearsay evidence, to prove ownership of the ship. Once the plaintiffs have failed to discharge this burden, they cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court against the defendant ship by an action in rem under s 3(4) of the Act.

In the result plaintiff's action fails as no action in rem lies against the defendant ship in the circumstances. Having found as above, it is unnecessary to conclude whether services of the nature rendered by the plaintiffs to the defendant ship fall within the provision of s 1(1)(m) of the Act.