The plaintiff worked as a driver of a telescopic forklift in the hold of the first defendant ship Christy, which was moored at a jetty inside the enclosed area of ​​the port of Larnaca. In 2013, a tool used by two other employees of the defendant ship, who were working on a construction in the hold, fell to the floor of the hold. The two employees asked the plaintiff to bring it up to them. The plaintiff tried to climb a portable metal ladder that was placed on the construction in the hold in order to deliver the tool. While he was on the metal ladder, he fell and was seriously injured.

The first defendant claimed that the plaintiff used the portable metal ladder on his own and/or without being asked by anyone and against the instructions given to him and without any reason related to the tasks assigned to him. It further claimed that the ladder did not recede or slip as a result of any negligence and/or omission of the defendant's lawful duties, but instead claimed that the accident occurred as a result of the plaintiff's negligence and/or concurrent negligence. Finally, the first defendant raised a preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Court. In particular, it claimed that the issue in question did not fall within the requirements of the Supreme Court/Maritime Court that are listed in s 1(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1956 (UK) (the Act) applicable in Cyprus pursuant to s 29(2)(a) of the Law on Courts of 1960 (Law 14/1960) as amended.

The plaintiff's lawyer contended that the plaintiff's claim fell under s 1(1)(f) of the Act, as it concerned bodily harm to the plaintiff as a result of a defect in the ship and its equipment, namely the metal ladder. It was also the result of the negligence of the owners and the crew (including the master) during the management of the ship, as the maintenance work of the ship is part of the management of the ship.

The lawyer of the first defendant ship argued that, in order for the plaintiff's claim to fall under s 1(1)(f) of the Act, it should have three characteristics:

• It should be a claim for loss of life or personal injury.
• Loss of life or personal injury must be the result of either:

(a) any defect of the ship or its equipment; or
(b) tort, negligence or omission of shipowners, charterers or persons in possession or control of the ship.

• The tort, negligence or omission must be related to the navigation, the management of the ship during loading, the transport of goods from or to it, or the intervention, transport or disembarkation of persons on or from the ship.

In the present case, according to the first defendant, the plaintiff did not prove that the accident was due to a defect in the ship or its equipment or to anything else referred to in s 1(1)(f).

Held: Action dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiff argued that its claim fall within the scope of s 1(1)(f) of the Act both with regard to the defect of the ship, the equipment and in particular the metal ladder, as well as in relation to the negligence of the owners and of the ship during the management of the ship.

In the present case it is admissible that the ship in question was not at sea and therefore what is stated in s 1(1)(f) on an act, neglect or default in navigation cannot be applied. Also, the other part regarding the act, neglect or default 'being an act in ... management of the ship' cannot be applied. As interpreted by the English courts, the phrase 'management of the ship' goes somewhat beyond - perhaps not much beyond - navigation, but far enough to take in the class of acts which do not affect the sailing or movement of the vessel, but do affect the vessel itself. The observation of the plaintiff's lawyer that the maintenance of the ship is part of the management of the ship may be correct, but the issue is not considered in this generality but whether the act, negligence or omission that led to the accident should be linked to, and has occurred 'in the management of the ship', in the sense interpreted by English case law. In this case, the accident occurred because one of the two hooks on the ladder used by the plaintiff broke. The breaking of the hook of the portable ladder does not affect the ship itself. Therefore, the case cannot be included in the second part of s 1(1)(f).

With regard to the first part of s 1(1)(f) which concerns a claim for loss of life or bodily injury as a result of any defect of the ship or hull or equipment of the ship, the ladder cannot be included in the concepts of 'ship' or 'accessories', but it was at the essential time part of the ship's equipment. The plaintiff's action therefore falls within s 1(1)(f) of the Act.

The claim states that at the material time the owner of the ship is the second defendant, namely Go Green Holding Ltd. In its response, the defendant ship denies this allegation. The plaintiff did not present any evidence to the Court regarding the ownership of the ship at any time. The burden of proving ownership, both at the material time of the accident and at the time of filing the action, is borne by the plaintiff, a burden which has not been proved.

The Maritime Court therefore has no jurisdiction to hear the present action and as a result the action should be dismissed. Regardless of the above, the Court will proceed to the issue of liability and compensation.

The plaintiff is entitled to EUR 189,510 on full liability. Taking into account that he was found liable of joint negligence by 20%, he would be entitled to a decision for the total amount of EUR 151,608, plus legal interest from the day the lawsuit was filed.

[For the successful appeal, see Panagi v The Ship 'Christy' (CMI1441).]