Repository logo

Maritime Law

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://hdl.handle.net/10413/8382

Browse

Browsing Maritime Law by Subject "Admiralty jurisdiction."

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Gone overbroad? Critically examining the classification of maritime claims by South African courts.
    (2021) Harpur Gevers, Amy Garnett.; Surbun, Vishal.
    South African courts are empowered, in the exercise of their admiralty jurisdiction, to provide ‘far-reaching and even revolutionary methods to prevent recalcitrant debtors from evading their legal debts’. These ‘revolutionary’ remedies are not reserved for South African claimants alone, but are potentially available to the ‘wandering maritime litigants of the world’. The catch, as it were, is that only certain types of claims qualify to benefit from this specialised jurisdictional regime. To qualify, a claim must fall within the definition of ‘maritime claim’ in s 1(1) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983. Through a critical analysis of the reasoning followed in Peros v Rose, The Mineral Ordaz and Kuehne & Nagel, this study will highlight the challenges and pitfalls of classifying a maritime claim under the Act, such as taking into account a future defence to a claim in the process of classifying a claim; conflating the process of classifying a maritime claim with the process of categorizing a ‘marine or maritime matter’ in terms of s 1(1)(ee) of the Act; conflating the contents of an underlying ‘maritime agreement’ with the provisions of a ‘maritime topic’ set out in s 1(1) of the Act, and confusing the policy considerations that justify the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction. Having done so, this study will then propose the adoption of a three-stage approach to the maritime-claim enquiry; namely, (a) the clear identification of the claim, (b) the articulation of the relevant maritime topic and (c) the establishment of a maritime connection between the two. In particular, as to (b), this study will explore the factors that may be relevant to the categorisation of a settlement agreement as a ‘marine or maritime matter’ in terms of s 1(1)(ee) of the Act. In addition, as to (c), a test for establishing a direct maritime connection will be formulated for borderline cases, and a modified version of the ‘legally relevant connection’ test developed in Kuehne & Nagel will be proposed as a tool to establish an indirect maritime connection, where appropriate.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Maritime claims: gangway to ship arrest: a case study of South Africa and Nigeria.
    (2020) Ayo-Ojo, Bayode Sunday.; Donnelly, Dusty-Lee.
    The arrest of a ship cannot be granted in any court exercising its admiralty jurisdiction if the claimant/plaintiff cannot ascertain that he/she has a maritime claim. Arresting a ship is a unique concept. A maritime claimant who has a maritime claim against a ship could only arrest in an action in rem in a circumstance where the plaintiff can show that he/she has a maritime lien or can show that the owner of the vessel would be liable in personam (i.e. a statutory lien). However, there is more complication to what maritime claims entail in different countries of the world. Most shipping jurisdictions have adopted the International Convention on the Arrest of Sea-going Vessels 1952 definition and outline of maritime claims. However, some maritime claims under the 1952 Arrest convention differ in interpretation when used in the national court. On this note, the curial question is what type of maritime claims constitute maritime liens because the recognized maritime liens differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Thus, Nigeria and South Africa as former colonies of Britain have adopted relevant principles from the English admiralty law. Africa’s seaports are seen as the gateways for Africa growing a thriving international trade business. However, there is a lack of literature comparing two African jurisdictions to each other. On this note, due to the underutilized and understudied legal systems in Africa, it is paramount to compare and understand what constitute maritime claims in both countries and how they are being interpreted.