Fourteen vessels, including the defendant's vessel SY Explorer, took part in a race. The defendant was the founder and chairperson of the race. The vessels berthed at the claimant's Southampton marina. On departure, the claimant refused to provide clearance forms because the berthing fees, amounting to some GBP 25,830, had not been paid. The claimant arrested the defendant’s vessel.

The defendant brought two applications. The first was for an order to have the claimant's alleged in rem claim dismissed because the Court's admiralty jurisdiction to hear the claimant's alleged claim was not engaged. The second was for an order that the claimant's claim be struck out under CPR rule 3.4(2)(a) and/or the Court’s inherent jurisdiction because there were no reasonable grounds for bringing a claim against the defendant and, consequently, that the SY Explorer be released from arrest.

The defendant argued that the claimant agreed to provide berthing free of charge as part of an overall sponsorship deal. Alternatively, if the fees were payable, the counterparty was not the defendant, but rather an Australian company of which he was the chief executive officer.

Held: The first application is granted. The second application is refused.

The nub of both applications was a challenge to the proposition that the defendant was, or reasonably arguably was, the counterparty to a contract with the claimant for berthing the client's marina and for the payment of a berthing fee.

In the first application, the principal issue was whether the defendant fell within the jurisdiction established by s 21(4) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (UK), ie was the person who would be liable on the assumption that the action succeeded. In the second application, the question was whether the particulars of claim disclosed reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.

The proposition that the berthing was to be free flatly contradicted the defendant's own statement and conduct.

The defendant had contracted personally. It was impossible to say that the claimant's case on this point - ie, that the defendant was contracting personally - was unwinnable. Therefore, the second application and the first part of the first application were refused.

The defendant's subsidiary point in his first application assumed more importance. That point was that the claimant's claim concerned the SY Explorer and 13 others. The defendant argued that the claimant's claim was a permissible admiralty claim only to the extent that it concerned berthing fees exclusively attributable to the SY Explorer. It followed that the security required to release the SY Explorer was some GBP 2,171.36, rather than GBP 25,830 as claimed.

The claim fell within s 20(2)(n) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 [which is equivalent to art 1.1.l of the Arrest Convention 1952], which gave jurisdiction to hear and determine 'any claim in respect of the construction, repair or equipment of a ship or in respect of dock chargers or dues'. A claim in respect of dock charges or dues may be brought in rem if the provisions of s 21(3) and (4) are satisfied.

The defendant argued, among other things, that the claim in s 21(4) had to be connected with a particular ship, in this case, the SY Explorer, and confined to the services provided to that ship. There was no authority specifically dealing with ss (n), but the defendant submitted that a proper reading of ss (n) was to add the words 'of a ship' at the end of the subsection. The defendant relied on The Eschersheim [1976] 2 Lloyds Rep 1 (CMI2166), The Lloyd Pacifico [1995] 1 Lloyds Rep 54, and The Alexandrea [2002] 3 SLR 56, [2002] SGHC 82.

The claimant submitted that these authorities were all concerned with arrests of the wrong vessel, whereas the issue here concerned the narrower question of the permissible scope of the claim against what was acknowledged to be the correct vessel. The claimant argued, among other things, that there was no need or warrant to add the words 'of a ship' to ss (n). Even if the words 'of a ship' were added, the dock dues were claims properly brought in rem against the SY Explorer because the SY Explorer was the lead ship whose owner had agreed to pay the dues of the entire flotilla of 14 vessels.

The sense of ss (n) was indeed that the dock charges or dues were 'of a ship'; indeed, no other interpretation was realistically available. The dock dues of the SY Explorer were GBP 2,171.36. The remainder of the sums claimed were the dock dues of the other ships of the flotilla. The defendant was, on the claimant's case, personally liable for those dues, but that did not render them the dock dues of the SY Explorer. That would be to interpret the words 'the claim arises in connection with a ship' in s 21(4) of the Act very widely, whereas the authorities mandate a narrow interpretation focused on the precise category of maritime claim in order to identify the particular ship in respect of which a claim of that description applies. Adopting a wide interpretation would expand the scope of the Admiralty Court's in rem jurisdiction in a way that had no proper statutory basis. This meant that the claimant would have to bring different in rem claims against each of the vessels concerned, or content itself with a claim against this defendant, the bulk of which must be an in personam claim.