← Κύπρος

clr/1983/1983_1_124.pdf

(1983)1982 December 8 [SAVVIDES, J.] WILLIAMS AND GLYN'S BANK PLC. AND TEN OTHERS, Plaintiffs. THE SHIP -MARIA" NOW LYING AT THE PORT OF LIMASSOL. Defendant. {Admiralty Action No. 177/82). Practice—Admiralty action—Direction*;for pleadings to be fifed within a fixed limited period and a short date of trial given due to urgency of disposing of the action·—No answer to plaintiffs' petition—And application by plaintiff's for judgment by default —Defendants applying for adjournment, on date of hearing of 3 plaintiff's' application, because they had filed an application for an order staying the proceedings and for an order extending the time within which tofiletheir answer—Applicationfor adjournment made very late in the day—Refused. Admiralty—Practice—Pleadings—Default of defendants to file an answer—Plaintiffs entitled to apply for judgment by default of pleading—Rules 82, 84, 203, 212 and 237 of the Supreme Court of Cyprus in its Admiralty jurisdiction, Rules of the Supreme Court of England 1883 and the inherentjurisdiction of the Court. 10 Interest—Admiralty action—Judgment in respect of wages, leave wages and overtime to members of the crew—Interest may be awarded—Section 3
(1)of the English Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934 applicable by virtue of sections 19(a) and 29
(2)of the Courts of Justice Law, 1960 (Law 14/60). 15 This was one of a series of actions brought against the defend- 20 ant ship by members of the crew in respect of wages, leave wagesetc. Due to theurgency for disposing ofthecases pending against the ship,in view ofthe heavy Marshal's expenses incurred for keeping her under arrest, directions were given by the Court 124 1 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 25 ?0 25 4Q Williams and Glyn's Bank >. Ship "Maria" on the 21st October 1982 foi pleading-, to be filed within a fixed limited period and a short date of trial was given. Plaintiffs' petition was then filed within the time prescribed by the-.e directions but no answer has been filed by defendants and no application for extension of the time for filing the answer was made by them. On November 24, i982 the plaintiifs filed an application by summons for judgment by default of defence which was fixed for hearing on the 8th December, \9H2 and to which no opposition was filed by the defendant. When both the action and the application c:ime up for heaung befoio the Court counsel for the defendant applied for an adjournment on the ground that "this morning they filed an application for an order staying the proceedings pending the final determination of an application filed by the defendant Ship in Admiralty Action No. 59/82 and in the alternative, for an order extending the time within winch the applicant was to file his defence until after the determination of three application^ pending for determination in Admiralty Action No. 59/82'\ This application was strongly objected to by plaintiffs who persisted in obtaining judgment as per their application. Held, (I) that the filing of the application by the defendant ship at this late stage if granted, v/ill amount to granting an adjournment of the hearing of the action for an indefinite time; that such application has been made very late in the day and cannot be a ground for adjourning the hearing and granting the remedies prayed for by such application; that in the circumstances, the application for an adjournment should be dismissed and is hereby dismissed and the Court will proceed to consider the matters fixed for hearing before it to-day.
(2)That once there was default on the part of the defendant ship to file her answer, the plaintiifs were entitled to apply to the Court for judgment by default of pleadings and they rightly did so (see rules 84, 203-212 and 237 of the Supreme Court of Cyprus in its Admiralty Jurisdiction, the Rules of the Supreme Court of England 1883 and the inherent power and jurisdiction of the Court); that if the defendant shall make default in the filing of his enswer within the prescribed pe.-iod he shaM not be at liberty, except by leave ofthe Court, to dispute any of the facts alleged by the plaintiiT in his petition and the Court may, on the application of the plaintiiT, give judgment 125 Williams and Gljn's Bank v. Ship "Maria"
(1983)as the plaintiff may appear to be entitled to upon the facts alleged in his petition.
(3)That inthe presentcase,oncethecasewasfixed for hearing today and the defendant failed to comply with the directions of the Court as to the filing of pleadings, the plaintiffs were 5 entitled to apply for judgment by default of pleadings and they are therefore entitled to judgment on the facts proved by them.
(4)That plaintiffs are entitled to interest on the amount recovered. (See section 3
(1)of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous 10 Provision) Act, 1934applicable by virtue of sections 19(a) and 29
(2)of the Courts of Justice Law, 1960 (Law 14 of I960)). Judgment for plaintiffs .as per claim. Cases referred to: Photiadis v.DireetorofPorts
(1982)1 C.L.R. 244at pp.254,
  1. \5 Admiralty action. Admiralty action for U.S. dollais 62,134.32 in respect of wages, leave wages, overtime and compensation and 336,639 Greek drachmas in respect of repatriation expenses due and payable by the defendant sJiip "Maria" to plaintiffs 2-11 and 20 by subrogation to plaintiff I. M. Montanios with E. Montcmios, for the plaintiffs. M. Eliades with A. Skordis, for the defendant ship. SAVVIDES J. gave the following judgment; The present action is one of a series of actions brought against the ship 25 "MARIA" now lying at the port of Limassol and being under arrest by virtue of a warrant issued in another action. Due to the urgency for disposing of the case pending against the said ship, in view of the heavy Marshal's expenses incurred and being incurred daily for keeping the said ship under arrest, 30 when this case came up before the Court on the 21st October, 1982, directions were given for pleadings to be filed within a fixed limited period and a short date of trial was given. According to such directions, the petition had to be filed within seven days, the answer within fifteen days and any reply, within 35 four days and the hearing was fixed for today. 126 I C.L.R. Williams and GI>rT<, Bank *. Ship "Maria" Sa^ides J. Plaintiff's petition was filed in compliance with the directions given but no answer has been filed till today and no application wa·. made before the date of hearing for extension of time for filing the answer. In view of the failure 5 by the defendan· ship to file the answer to the petition, counsel for plaintiff on 24th November, 1982, filed an application by summons for judgment by default of defence to be entered on the day when the action was to be heard'. Copy of such application was, according to a statement made by counsel 10 for the defendant ship, duly received by them. Plaintiffs 2 to 11 were members of the crew of the defendant ship who, after her arrest, became supernumerous and had to be dismissed and repatriated and their claim for wages be settled. By an order of the Court dated 10th March, 1982 in 15 Action No. 59/82 which was an action brought by plaintiff 1 in this action against the defendant ship and in which the warrant of arrest oftheshipwasissued,plaintiff i was authorised to pay and discharge the claims of the ten members of the crew (plaintiffs 2 to 11in this action) and their expensesfor repatria20 tion and besubrogated to all their rights and remedies in respect of their wages and repatriation expenses. Plaintiff 1 who is a public limited company operating as Bankers, in compliance with the said order, paid off the claims of the said members of the crew and their repatriation expenses and together with 25 such persons filed the present action on the 31st August,
  2. Under paragiaph 10 of their petition dated 29th October, 1982 plaintiffs 2 to 11 and by subrogation plaintiff 1, claim:
(1)U.S. dollars 62,134.32 in respect of wages, leave wages, overtime and compensation due and payable by the defendant 30 ship to plaintiffs 2 to 11 and by subrogation to plaintiff 1 who paid same.
(2)Greek Drachmas 336,639inrespectofrepatriation expenses of plaintiffs 2to 11 payable to plaintiffs by the defendant ship and by subrogation payable to plaintiff 1 who incurred same. 35
(3)Interest ontheabove asfrom 12.3.1982until final payment at the rate of 15 per cent per annum.
(4)The costs of this action. 127 Simides J. Williunii and Gljn's Bank i. Sliip "Maria" (1S83) Under paragraphs
(4),
(5),
(6),
(7)and
(8)of the petition the facts which gave cause of action in these proceedings are set out as follows: 4. Plaintiffs
(2)to (II) (inclusive) wore until 12.3.1982 members of the crew of the Defendant ship. Until then, they had not been for several months paid for their wages and other benefits by the Owners and/or Managers and/or the Master of the Defendant ship. 5 5. On or about 9.3.1982, in an effort to minimize the 10 Defendant ship's overhead expenses, Plaintiff
(1), through its Assistant General Manager Mr. Rex Hairington, orally agreed with the Master of the Defendant ship, acting on behalf of the Defendant, and with the Owners. Operators and/or Managers of the Defendant ship that 15 about 10 members of the crew should be paid off and be repatriated by Plaintiff
(1)who should then step into their shoes through subrogation of their rights against the Defendant ship.
  1. On 12.3.1982, the Owners, Operators and Managers 20 of the Defendant ship agreed in writing with Plaintiff (I) that the latter should pay off and repatriate the Master, Officers and the whole crew of the Defendant ship and be subrogated to iheir priority rights against it.
  2. Persuant to the agreement referred to in paragraph 25
(5)hereinabove, Plaintiff
(1)applied to the above named Court in the said Admiralty Action No. 59/82, for, and obtained on 10.3.1982, an Order authorizing it to negotiate and agree the settlement of the claims for wages of about 10 crew members of the Defendant ship, to pay them and 30 to dismiss and repatriate such crew members. Under this Order, Plaintiff
(1)would stand in the shoes of the said crew members and would be subrogated to their rights and remedies against the Defendant ship, in respect of ihsir wages and repatriation expenses to be paid by it. 35 8. Pursuant to the Court Order referred to in the preceding paragraph, Plaintiffs
(1)negotiated and paid on 12.3.1982 to Plaintiffs
(2)to
(11)(inclusive) their claims 128 1 C.L.R. 5 Williams and Glyn's Bank v. Ship "Maria" Savvides J. for wages and othei benefits arising from their employ­ ment and service on the Defendant ship and further dis­ missed and repatriated them, with the privity, consent and agreement of the Master, the Owners and Managers of the Defendant ship, as follows" and then particulars are set out in respect of the wages paid to each one of Plaintiffs
(2)to
(11)and their repatriation expenses. The application for judgment by default of defence to be 10 entered in favour of plaintiff 1 and which is before the Court today is supported by an affidavit sworn by Persefoni Panayi, an advocate in the office of Messrs. MontaniosandMontanios, who appear for the plaintiffs, whereby a number of documents supporting plaintiffs' claims. are attached. Such documents 15 include, inter alia, a written consent and authorisation by the owners of the defendant ship to the plaintiffs, duly attested by a Notary Public in London, to pay the Master, officers and crew of the defendant ship, all their dues and be subrogated in respect of what they would pay (exhibit Ά ' to the affidavit), 20 They also include receipts of the amounts paid by plaintiff 1 to plaintiffs 2 to 11 in respect of their dues and receipts as to their expatriation expenses by plaintiff
  1. When both theaction andtheapplication, to which nooppo25 sition was filed, came up for hearing before this Court today, counsel for applicant applied for an adjournment on theground that this morning theyfiledan application for an order staying the proceedings pending the final determination of an applica­ tionfiledby the defendant ship in Admiralty Action No. 59/82 30 and in the alternative, for an order enlarging the time within which the applicant was tofilehis defence until after thedeter­ mination of thiee applications pending for determination in Admiralty Action No. 59/
  2. Counsel for plaintiffs strongly objected to any adjournment and persisted in obtaining 35 judgment as per their application. As 1 have already mentioned, earlier in this judgment, due to the urgency of having any claims against the defendant ship disposed of asexpeditiously as possible, inviewof theenormous expenses which are being incurred due to the arrest of the 129 Sawidcs J. Williams and Gljn's Bank Λ. Ship "Maria*'
(1983)defendant ship and for maintaining same under arrest and aiso the risks which the ship is undergoing due to the approach­ ing winter and the rough sea, as site is anchored outside the Limassol poit, directions were made for expediting the trial of this action by the speedy exchange of pleadings and for an 5 early date of trial. There was no compliance by the defendant ship with such directions. Noteven after thefilingof the appli­ cation on behalf of the plaintiffs to obtain judgment by default. which was an indication that the plaintiffs persisted to have their claims dealt with as early as possible. The filing of an 10 application by the defendant ship at this late stage, if granted, will amount to granting an adjournment of the hearing of the action for an indefinite time. 1 find that such application has been made very late in the day and cannot be a ground for adjourning the hearing and granting the remedies prayed for 15 by such application. In the circumstances, 1 find that the application for an adjournment should be dismissed and is hereby dismissed and I shall proceed to consider the matters fixed for hearing before me today. Once there was default on the part of the defendant ship 20 to file her answer, the plaintiffs were enlitled to apply to the Court for judgment by default of pleadings and they rightly did so. Their application is based on rules 84, 203-212 and 237 of the Supreme Courtof Cyprus inits Admiralty Jurisdiction, on the Rules of the Supreme Court of England 1883 and on the 25 inherent power and jurisdiction of the Court. Under rule 84 of our Admiralty Rules in case where the Court deems fit to require the parties to file written pleadings under rule 82, if the defendant shall make default in the filing of his answer within the prescribed period he shall not be at liberty, except 30 by leave of the Court, to dispute any of the facts alleged by the plaintiff in his petition and the Court may on theapplicat'on of the plaintiff, give judgment as the plaintiff may appear to be enlitled to upon the facts alleged in his petition. In the present case, once the case was fixed for hearing today 35 and the defendant failed to comply with the directions of the Court as to the filing of pleadings, the plaintiffs were entitled to apply for judgment by default of pleadings and they are entitled to judgment on the facts proved by them. In the light 130 I C.L.R. Williams and Giyn's Bank v. Ship "Maria" Savvidcs.1. of the evidence contained in the affidavit of Persefoni Panayi and thedocuments annexed theretowhich stand uncontradicted. Ifindthatplaintiff 1is entitled tojudgment against the defendant as per paragraph 10(i) and (ii) of the claim. 5 As to the claim under paragraph 10(iii), I am coming to consider whether plaintiff 1is entitled to interest on theamount recovered as from the date of payment, which, according to the affidavit before me was the 12th March, 1982, till the date of the judgment. Under the English Law Reform (MiscelJa10 neous Provisions) Act, 1934, section 3
(1)it is provided as follows: 15 " 3.-(
  1. l)In any proceedings tried in any Court of Record for the recovery of any debt or damages, the Court may. if it thinks fit, order that there shall be included in the sum for which judgment is given interest at such rate as it thinks fit on the whole or any part of the debt or damages for the whole or any part of the period between the date when thecause of action arose andthedate of thejudgment: Provided that nothing in this section— 20 (
  2. a)shall authorise the giving of interest upon interest; or (
  3. b)shall apply in relation to any debt upon which interest is payable as of right whether by virtue of any agree­ ment or otherwise; or 25 30 35 (
  4. c)shall affect the damages recoverable for the dishonour of a bill of exhange". Under the provisions of section 19
(1)and 29
(2)of the Courts of Justice Law, 1960, (Law Ι4/19οΌ), the Supreme Court in the exercise of its admiralty jurisdiction shall apply the law and practice applicable in the High Court of England in the exercise of its admiralty jurisdiction. By virtue of such provision the provisions under section 3
(1)of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 which is applicable in England in any proceedings tried in any Court of Record (which includes the Admiralty Court), is extended to Cyprus. Therefore, interest may be awarded on the amount claimed. (See also Photiades v. Director of Ports
(1982)I C.L.R. 244 at pp. 254, 255). 131 Savvides J. Williams and Glyn's Bank v. Ship "Maria"
(1983)I, therefore find that plaintiff 1is entitled to inteiest on the amounts awarded to him under paragraph 10(
  1. i)and (
  2. ii)as from 12.3.1982, the date of payment, tilljudgment. As to the rate ofinterest whichisclaimed bythe plaintiff's, inthe absence of any evidence to support same, 1findit reasonable to award 5 interest as from 12th March, 1982at the rate of 7per cent per annum. As to the rate of interest after judgment, 1 award interest on the amounts awarded under paragraph 10(
  3. i)and (
  4. ii)of the Petition at the rate of9percentperannum asfrom thedate 10 ofjudgment tillfinalpayment relying on theprovisions of rule 170oftheRulesoftheSupremeCourt ofCyprus,inits admiralty jurisdiction, whereby the rate of interest after judgment is fixedat 9 per cent. Defendant also to pay the costs of this action, for one advocate. Such costs to be assessed by the 15 Registrar. Judgment for plaintiff1 as above. 132

🔗 Στην επίσημη πηγή

AI explanation based on the official legal text. Indicative, not a substitute for legal advice.