The plaintiff company, which is engaged in the provision of technical services and materials to ships and boats, claimed EUR 5,176.50 as the agreed and/or reasonable fee for various repairs and work conducted for the operation and maintenance of the defendant vessel. The defendant denied the plaintiff's claim, stating that the plaintiff merely delivered and/or sent to representatives of the vessel offers for various tasks, but the agreement between them was never completed and no price or other terms were agreed. Representatives of the plaintiff visited the defendant vessel for inspections and preparation of an offer, but did not carry out any work. In addition, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff never provided the defendant with any list of the alleged works and materials. In the alternative, the defendant argued that if the plaintiff 'wanted to be considered to have performed work on the basis of an agreement, such work was not satisfactory and/or does not correspond to the amount charged or overcharged to the vessel'.

Held: Judgment for the plaintiff.

The jurisdiction of this Court as a Court of first instance is a given. It stems, of course, from arts 19 and 29 of the Courts Act 14/60 and the Administration of Justice Act 1956 (UK) (the Act), which determine the jurisdiction of the High Court of England and by analogy, that of the Supreme Court of Cyprus. In particular, in this case, ss 1(1)(m) and 1(1)(n) of the Act [which correspond to arts 1.1.k and 1.1.l of the Arrest Convention 1952] are relevant. Also relevant are the Regulations that are applied during the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Maritime Court, ie the Supreme Court (Jurisdiction of the Maritime Court) Procedural Regulations (DN Volume II, p 573) which explicitly refers to the practice of the Admiralty Court of the High Court of England (see reg 237).

After considering the evidence, the Judge found that the plaintiff's claim must be considered credible. The basic version of events on the defendant's side collapsed after it emerged almost as common ground, or in any case undisputed, that the plaintiff's employees had boarded the vessel and stayed there for some time. This could not have happened without consent. Nor could anyone imagine that the plaintiff and its staff would spend hours repairing or purchasing necessary components without an agreement. The correspondence submitted proved this. The same correspondence also showed a delay on the part of the representatives of the vessel to pay, and constant requests for clarifications and details. But this did not mean that there was no agreement, or that the work was not done.

Even if the Judge was wrong in the above approach to an agreed fee and value of parts and spare parts, the plaintiff's evidence is convincing that this is a reasonable fee. Although in some items there was no pre-arrangement for the price, all that was mentioned shows that it is a reasonable fee and reflects the value of the components. The case law demonstrates that it is legitimate for the Court to establish a reasonable remuneration from previous arrangements or actions of the parties, such as here, especially on the ground that the plaintiff - as is common ground - has provided these specialised services for years, and has conducted itself in a professional manner: see Kryiakou v Fishing Boat Monica, FP 702, (2003) 1 AAD 1397.