The appellant claimed in the jurisdiction of the Maritime Court, Supreme Court of Cyprus, against the defendants for compensation in relation to bodily injuries, damages and losses suffered in 2013, while he was on board the ship, as a result of negligence and/or violation of the legal duties of the defendants, plus interest and expenses. Counsel for the ship raised a preliminary objection as to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as a Maritime Court, while the second defendant denied ownership of the ship and/or that it was its owner at the material time. Without prejudice to the above, the ship made a general denial of the appellant's claims, disclaiming responsibility for the accident.

The Court of first instance, examining the testimony and the facts before it, rejected the preliminary objection. The appellant's claim, which referred to physical damage caused by a defective portable ladder that was part of the ship's equipment, meant that the action fell within s 1(1)(f) of the Administration of Justice Act 1956 (UK) (the Act), as applicable in Cyprus.

However, the Judge rejected the lawsuit due to lack of jurisdiction. He considered that the appellant, as the party that bore the burden of proof, had failed to discharge it, as a result of which the conditions set out in s 3(4) of the Act regarding the ownership status of the ship had not been met.

Nevertheless, the Court proceeded to examine the other disputed issue of liability for the accident, awarding 80% to the ship and an amount of EUR 151,608 as general and special damages, which the Court would have rendered to the appellant in the event of its success: see Panagi v The Ship 'Christy' (CMI1442).

The appellant appealed.

Held: Appeal upheld.

The appellant rightly complains that he testified to the Court about the ownership of the ship, with the result that the probative value of the evidence was not assessed and the Court reached the wrong conclusion. It appears from the record that the ship's lawyer in no way questioned either the appellant or his witnesses, or directly challenged their clear positions as to the ownership of the ship. Having regard to the indisputable evidence presented, the appellant has proved his case to the necessary level.

Exercising the power provided under s 25(3) of the Law on Courts Law 14/60, the dismissal decision of the first instance Court and the order for costs is set aside, and a decision in favour of the appellant and against the first defendant for the amount of EUR 151,608, plus legal interest, is issued as the decision of the first instance Court.