(1984)1984 March 19 [A. Loi/ou, SAVVJIXS. I*IKIS.JJ.] SOL MARITIME SERVICES LTD.. Appellants-Defendants, v. CYPRUS PORT AUTHORITY. Respondents-PlaintifiΆ. (Civil Appeal No. 6584). Ports—Wharf or jetty ("Προκυμαία ή Προβλή$")—Meaning — Breakwater—Whether a jetty within the meaning of regulation I of the Cyprus Ports Organization (Payable Fees) Regulations, 1976—-Ship stern-tied on breakwater of port—Berthage fees payable under the said Regulations—Stem-tying the onlyconsider ation and payment offees does not dependon theextent or nature of the services rendered by the Ports Authority. Words and Phrases—Wharf—Jetty—ί"Προκυμαία"—"Προβλήί*'). Statutes—Construction—Wharf or jetty ("Προκυμαία ή Προβλής") in regulation 1 of the Cyprus Ports Organization (Payable Fees) Regulations, 1976—In construing these words Court cannot rely on their statutory definition in other enactments but has to give them their ordinary meaning. The ship "Sol Phryne" which belongs to the appellant company was stern-tied on the eastern breakwater of Limassol port duringthe period from 19.4.1977 lo 29.6.1977 for repairs. A demand was made by the respondents for the payment of the relevant fees under regulation1* of the CyprusPorts Organ ization (Payable Fees) Regulations, 1976 but the appellant Company refused on the ground that although the vessel in question was moored in the Port, it was not alongsideor sternRegulation 1 provides as follows: "
- For c\cry ship benhing or stern-tied alongside a wharf or 'jetty*in a Port, shall be required for every day or part thereof the following fees: For every tenof net tonnage \2 mils". 220 I CL.R. Sol Maritime Sen ices v. Cjprus Porl Authority tied on a "Procymaca1* or "Provlita" which is an essential ele ment for the existence of the right to charge berthage fees. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Uponanactionbytherespondent»thetrial Courtadjudged the appellants to pay C£4,411.585 mils berthage fees and hencethis appeal. Held, that a "jetty" ("προβλής") is a natural or techni cal protrusion or projection in the sea; that the break water was an artificial protrusion intothesea; that, therefore. the vessel in question was during the material time berthed or stern-tied on a "jetty" ("τταραβαλλόμενον ή ττρυμνοδετούμενον κατά μήκοςπροβλήτοξ") andtherefore theimposition ol the dues which were levied by the Authority, was correctly made in accordancewith the provision^ of the Law; that. furthermore, the only consideration is the stern - tying on the "wharf" or "jetty" ("ττρυμνοδέτησίξ κατά μήκοί προκυμαίας ήττροβλήτος")andthepayment of fees does noi depend onthe exlent or nature of any services rendered by the Authority: accordingly the appeal must fail. Held, further, that as there is no definition in the Law andthe Regulations by virtue of which the berthage fees have beenchar ged, this Court cannot rely on the statutory definition of the words in question to be found in orher enaclments and for the purpose of theprovisions of those laws; that in the absence oi any definition in the law and of any indication that they have acquired a technical meaning and they are used as such, thej have to be given their ordinary meaning as the language of a statutemust beconstrued intheordinary andnatural meaningot the words and sentences, if there is nothing to modify, alter or qualify such language. Appealdismissed. Appeal. Appeal by defendants against the judgment of the Distiic· Court of Limassol (HadjiTsangaris, P.D.C. and Artemis, S.DJ.) dated the 2nd June, 1983 (Action No. 1245/80) whereby they were adjudged to pay to the plaintiffs the sum of £4,411.585 mils berthage fees. A. Neocleous, for the appellants. P. loannides, for the respondents. 40 A. Loizou J. gave thefollowingjudgment of the Court. This is an appeal from the judgment of the Full District Court of 221 Λ. l.oifiiu .
- Sol Maritime Scruets \. Cjprus Port Authorit>
(1984)Limassol by which the appellant Company was adjudged to pay C£4,411.585 mils berthage fjes under the Cyprus Ports Organi zation Law. 1973 (Law No. 38 of 1973, as amended, hereinafter to be referred to as the Law), and the Cyprus Ports Organization (Payable Foes) Regulations 1976, as amended (hereinafter to be referred to as the Regulations), legal interest and costs. The facts and circumstances of th? case arc not in dispute. The ship "SOL PHRYNE" belongs to the appellant Company and was st^m-ticd on the eastern breakwater during the pciiod from 19.4.77 to 29.6.77 for repairs. Λ demand was madeby the respondents for the paynunt of the relevant fees under regu lation I of the Regulations but the appellant Company refused on the ground - and this i> then defence pursued before the trial Court and in this Conn - that although thevessel in question was moored in the Port, it was not alongside or stem-tied on a "Procymaca" or "Provlita" (roughly translated Quay or Wha'
- f)which is αα essuitial element for the existence of the right to charge berthage fccs. Under .section 25 of the Law. "the Organization may. with the approval of the Council of Ministeis by Regulations, prescribe the charges payable for the time being for the use of the Port precincts under its jurisdiction .__ as well as the conditions ol payment and the manner in which th.y will be levied and col lected The relevant icguliuions wvrc publish:d in Supplement No.3. Part 1. to the Official Gazetteof the Republic under Notification No. 45 at page 207. Regulation I in Part ΙΓΙ thereof which deals with beithage fees provides:" 1 . ΔΓ εκαστον σκάφος τταραβαλλόμενον ή ττρυμνοδετούμευον κατά μήκος προκυμαίας ή ττροβλήτος εντός λιμένος κατα βάλλονται καθ' έκάστην ήμέραν ή μέρος αυτής τα ακό λουθα δικαιώματα: Δι' εκαστονκόρον καθαράς χωριτικότητος.... 12 μΐλς" And in English: " I. For every ship berthing or stem-tied alongside a wharf or •jetty' in a Port, shall be required for evety day or part thereof the following fees: For every ton of net tonnage ... 12 mils". 222 1 C.I..R. Sol Maritime Sen ices v. Cjprus Port Authority A. Loizou J- As the trial Court put it, what it had to decide was "whether under the aforesaid Regulation the said vessel 'SOL PHRYNE 1 was 'τταραβαλλόμενονή πρυμνοδετούμενον κατά μήκος προκυ μαίας ή ττροβλήτος.' In our opinion, a 'προβλής' is a natuial 5 or technical protrusion or projection and it was so desCiibed by P.W.I Meletiou,thecivil engineer who gave eviden ce and whose evidence we accept. Furthermore, in the 'Σύγχρονο Λεξικό 'Ελληνικής Γλώσσης ΕπιτροπήςΦιλολόγων' referred to by learned counsel for the plaintiffs, the meaning 10 is given as: 'Φυσική ή τεχνητή προεξοχή πού είσχωρεϊ είς τήν θάλασσαν'. We find thatthe vessel'SOL PHRYNE'was during the mateiial time'παραβαλλόμενον' or'πρυμνοδετούμενον'on a 'προβλής* and, therefore, theimposition of the dues, which were levied by the Authority, was correctly made in 15 accordance with the provisions of the Law. Furthermore,the only considerationis the 'πρυμυοδέτησις* on a 'προκυμαία' or on a 'προβλής'. Such payment of fees does not depend on the extent or nature of any setvices tendered by the Authority." It has been argued before us that the breakwater in question 20 had not beui at that time so built or constructed on the inside in such a way as to form a pioper quay, it could not be considered as a "provlita" or "procymaea" and that these two terms should be givtn the same meaning as the corresponding English woids into which counsel has tianslated same, such as "wharf" or 25 "jetty" are given in a number of Laws that had been enacted in English before Independence. One of them is the Shipping Dues Law, Cap. 296, and the Shipping Fees Regulations, made thereunder to be found in the Subsidiary Legislation of Cyprus, Vol. 1. page 607, where under regulation l(l)(
- b)"Every ship 30 using any part of the inner Harbour shall be charged th; follow ing fees: (
- b)berthage fees (when the ship is alongside a wharf or jetty) at the rate of 1/2 p. per diem foi every ton of the re gistered tonnageof theship" and also theCustomsManagement Law, Cap. 315, whsre "quay", "wharf" and "jetty" are defined 35 in section 2 thereof for the purposes of that Law as meaning "a place appointed or approved by the Governor-in-Council for the landing or shipment of goods and includes any jetty, pier or quay in a Port". We have also been referred to the English Harbour Act of 1964, section 67, foi a similar definition of the 40 said terms. 223 A. Loizou J. Sol Maritime Senices >.Cyprus Port Authority
(1984)We are afraid we cannotsubscribe to this view. As there is no definition in theLaw andthe Regulations by virtue of which the berthage fees have been charged, we cannot rely on the statutory definition of th.3words inquestiontobe found inother enactments andfor thepurpose of the provisions of thoselaws. in theabsence of any definition inthelaw and of anyindication that theyhave acquired a technicalmeaningandthey areused as such,wehave togivethemtheirordinary meaningasthelangua ge of a statute must be construed in the ordinary and natural meaningofthewords andsentences,ifthereisnothingto modify. alter οτ qualify such language. We agree, therefore, with the trial Court that in the way that the ship in question was stern-tied to this artificial protrusion into the sea, i.e. the breakwater, the appellant Company was liable to pay the fees claimed as being covered by the aforesaid Regulation and we dismiss the appeal with costs. Appealdismissed with costs. 224