This was an application by the defendant vessel to set aside the claimants' admiralty claim in rem for want of jurisdiction. On 10 August 2022, the claimants boarded the defendant MV Harbour Master, attending a party cruise. The claimants allege that at the end of the event, prior to disembarking the Harbour Master, a physical altercation ensued, and crew members of the defendant assaulted and battered the claimants, causing them injury. On 12 August 2022, the claimants filed an admiralty claim in rem against the defendant vessel.

On 17 October 2022, the defendant applied for the following orders that: (1) this Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim; (2) the claim be set aside and all subsequent proceedings stayed or relief granted to the defendant; and (3) costs. The defendant contended that the admiralty in rem jurisdiction of this Court is established by s 8 of the West Indies Associated States Supreme Court (Grenada) Act and s 1 of the Administration of Justice Act 1956 (UK) (the Act). With respect to personal injuries claims, s 1(1)(f) of the Act provides that such injuries must be sustained as a consequence of an act, neglect, or default in the navigation or management of the ship. The defendant argued that the claimants' injuries were not sustained as a consequence of an act, neglect, or default in the navigation or management of the Harbour Master.

Held: Judgment for the defendant.

The relevant parts of s 1(1)(f) of the Act require the claimants to show that the personal injury sustained are: (1) In consequence of the wrongful act of the owners, charterers, or persons in possession or control of the ship, or the master or crew thereof or any persons in possession or control of a ship; as well as (2) An act, neglect, or default in the navigation or management of the ship, in the loading carriage or discharge of goods on, in or from the ship or in the embarkation, carriage or disembarkation of persons on, in or from the ship.

The provisions of s 1(1)(f) are conjunctive. As the injuries which the claimants suffered were in consequence of the wrongful acts of the crew of the Harbour Master, the first requirement is fulfilled. However, the claimants are further tasked to satisfy the second limb to invoke the in rem jurisdiction of this Court. It cannot be said that the claimants’ injuries were as a result of an act, neglect, or default in the navigation of the ship in the loading, carriage or discharge of goods on, in or from the ship.

The claimants have failed to demonstrate in what way the act, neglect, or default in the management of the vessel, Harbour Master caused them injury. It cannot be found that the claimants' alleged injuries arose because of a failure to maintain the vessel, and there is no assertion that the alleged injuries were sustained as a consequence of faults caused either by the master, crew and/or the shipowners in ensuring that the vessel was safe to sail and operate. The claimants' claim therefore fails to satisfy the conjoined requirements of ss 1(1)(f) and 3 of the Act.

The claimants are further required to satisfy the Court that the party liable in personam is, or was, also the beneficial owner of the vessel, the Harbour Master, at the commencement of the action. The claimants assert that the beneficial owner of the Harbour Master is Tall Ships (Barbados) Inc, and that the vessel is operated by Harbour Tours Ltd. The defendant contends that the registered owner of Harbour Master is Harbour Tours Ltd, a company incorporated pursuant to the laws of St Lucia, but that the beneficial ownership of the vessel was vested in Harbour Tours Ltd, a company incorporated pursuant to the laws of Trinidad and Tobago. On a dispute as to jurisdiction, the burden of proof is on the party seeking to persuade the Court to exercise its discretion in their favour. Given that the events which gave rise to the injuries sustained by the claimants were through the operations of Harbour Tours Ltd, it could be found that Harbour Tours Ltd is a party liable in personam in this matter. Harbour Tours Ltd would have to be the beneficial owner of the Harbour Master at the time of the commencement of this action in order for this Court to have jurisdiction. The claimants by their own evidence have demonstrated Tall Ships (Barbados) Inc to be the beneficial owner of the Harbour Master. This Court accordingly lacks jurisdiction to deal with the claimants' claim against the Harbour Master.