The plaintiff brought an action in rem against the MV Aya Trigon, a foreign vessel, in respect of necessaries supplied to the vessel (which included claims for port charges, cargo expenses, bulk fuel and sundry expenses). The defendant shipowner argued that the statement of claim did not disclose a cause of action known to the law of Papua New Guinea.

Held: Judgment for the defendant.

The cause of action in rem for necessaries supplied to a foreign vessel was abolished in Papua New Guinea by virtue of the repeal of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act 1890 (Imp), by the Papua New Guinea Independence Act 1975, on Independence. The Admiralty Courts Acts 1840 and 1861 are no longer applicable in Papua New Guinea for the same reason. Those sections were replaced in England by a similar provision in the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1925 which was in turn replaced by a section in the Administration of Justice Act 1956. The latter Act re-defined the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court and was passed to give effect to the International Convention relating to the Arrest of Sea-going Ships signed in Brussels in 1952 (Arrest Convention 1952). The Administration of Justice Act has avoided using the term 'necessaries'. The relevant section reads as follows:

s(1)(1) The Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court shall be as follows, that is to say, jurisdiction to hear and determine any of the following questions or claims: ... (m)  any claim in respect of goods or materials supplied to a foreign ship for her operation or maintenance.

The cause of action has thus remained a statutory one in England which means that it forms no part of the common law of England adopted in Papua New Guinea under Sch 2.2 of the Constitution.

As the action in rem for necessaries in Papua New Guinea no longer exists, the plaintiff’s cause of action as pleaded fails. But as the common law of contract applies, the Court should examine whether the plaintiff’s claim succeeds in contract. The plaintiff’s in personam claim in contract is against the shipowner, Basis Vedbaek of Denmark. Although the owner is not named as the defendant in the writ of summons nor has it filed an appearance, the sum claimed in the writ of summons was paid into court with a denial of liability by the owner and the defendant shipowner has been represented at trial. On the facts, however, the plaintiff supplied necessaries to the charterer, Yuma Shipping of Hong Kong, and not to the defendant shipowner. The claim in contract fails.