This appeal relates to the question whether there was a substantive law which enabled the High Court of Colombo to exercise admiralty jurisdiction consequent upon the repeal in 1979 of the Administration of Justice Law No 44 of 1973 by s 62 of the Judicature Act No 2 of 1978 until the passing of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act No 40 of 1983.

The respondent, PB Umbichy Ltd, filed an action in rem in the High Court of Colombo against the vessel MV Shantha Rohan, then lying in the port, claiming for damage to 6,050 bags of sugar. On 1 September 1983 the writ of summons was served and the vessel placed under arrest. Hede Navigation (Pte) Ltd, the owner of the vessel, contended that the vessel's arrest was illegal and that there was no substantive law which provided for the exercise of the admiralty jurisdiction vested in the High Court at the date of the institution of the action and at the date of making the order.

The High Court Judge held that there was a substantive operative law which enabled the High Court to exercise its admiralty jurisdiction at the material time. He also held that it was the law that prevailed for the time being of the High Court of England which was then consolidated in the Administration of Justice Act 1956 (UK).

The appellant seeks to have this order set aside on the ground that it is contrary to law and is a nullity.

Held: Appeal upheld. The judgment of the High Court is rescinded and the writ in rem and warrant of arrest are recalled.

It is appropriate to determine the nature of the existing jurisdiction when the Administration of Justice Law No 44 of 1973 took effect. Section 54 provided that 'unless the context otherwise requires ... admiralty jurisdiction means, until otherwise provided for by written law, the admiralty jurisdiction for the time being of the High Court of England'. There was no written law which provided 'otherwise' for admiralty jurisdiction during the period of the operation of this law.

The effect of s 2(2) of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act 1890 (Imp) was to limit the jurisdiction of the Colonial Court of Admiralty established by the Ceylon Courts of Admiralty Ordinance No 2 of 1891 to the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court of England exercised at that point of time. Although there was an expansion of the admiralty jurisdiction in England in the nineteenth century and these extensions of jurisdiction were granted to the High Court of Admiralty, they were not automatically operative overseas. Thus the extension of admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court by the Administration of Justice Act 1920 (UK), repealed and re-enacted by the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 (UK), did not apply to the Colonial Courts of Admiralty.

The statute governing admiralty jurisdiction in England as at 1 January 1974 when the Administration of Justice Law No 44 of 1973 came into effect was the Administration of Justice Act 1956 (UK), which was based partly on the International Convention relating to the Arrest of Seagoing Ships (Arrest Convention 1952) and the International Convention on certain Rules concerning Civil Jurisdiction in Matters of Collision (Collision (Civil Jurisdiction) Convention 1952), both signed at Brussels on 10 May 1952, and to both of which the United Kingdom was a signatory.

The effect of the plain words in s 54 of the Administration of Justice Law No 44 of 1973 was to vest this extended jurisdiction of the High Court of Justice in England in the High Court of Colombo. Section 13(2) of the Judicature Act provided that the admiralty jurisdiction 'shall be as provided by law for the time being in force'. There was, thus, no law relating to the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction by the High Court either by reference to the provision of any statute or by reference to the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court of England with the repeal of s 54 included in ch 1 of the Administration of Justice Law. The 'written law' which finally set out the nature, scope, extent and the mode of exercising of admiralty jurisdiction was the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act No 40 of 1983, which only came into operation on 1 November 1983. It provided for the High Court to have jurisdiction to hear and determine almost the identical questions and claims which the High Court in England had the power to hear and determine in terms of the Administration of Justice Act 1956 (UK).

The admiralty jurisdiction vested in the High Court by the Judicature Act No 2 of 1978 could therefore not have been legally exercised after 2 July 1979, as there was no law in force which provided for it, until 1 November 1983, when the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act No 40 of 1983 relating to the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction was brought into operation. For these reasons, the High Court Judge erred in law.