1C.L.R. 1989July29 (A LOIZOU,Ρ) ARIZONA SHIPPING CO. LTD., Plaintiffs, v. ARMANDOMASSARMARINESERVICES LTD., Defendants (Admiralty Action No. 15/88). c 10 Admiralty — Jurisdiction — Claim against agent of ship for misusing money belonging totheshipowner — TheEnglishAdministration of JusticeAct, 1956, section 1(i)(h)—Asplaintiffs' saidclaim isneither aclaim arising outofany agreement forthecarriage ofgoods bysea norfrom theuseorhire ofaship,theclaimfallswithin the Jurisdiction of theordinary Courts — Action dismissedforwant of jurisdiction. In this case the Courtdismissed theaction for want of jurisdiction, having first reached the conclusion on the basis of the petition that the plaintiffs' claim is against the agent of their ship for misusing money belonging tothem. Action dismissedwith costsagainstthe plaintiffs. Preliminary objection. Preliminary objection raised by defendants that the subject matter of this action does notfall within the admiralty jurisdiction 15 of thisCourt. L. Papaphilippou, for the applicants-defendants. C. Saveriades, for the respondents-plaintiffs. Cur. adv. vulL A. LOIZOUP. read the following judgment. The defendants 20 have raised by way of preliminary objection the question thatthe subject matter of this action does not fall within the Admiralty 403 A. LoizouP. ArizonaShippingv. Massar Maritime
(1989)junsdiction of thisCourt They base theirobjection onthefacts of the case as they appear inthefile of the action and thepetition The plaintiffs, aCompany duly incorporated undertheLaws of the Republic were at all matenal times the owners of thevessel «MAYA», registered on theCyprus Register 5 As set out in paragraph 4 of the Petition «Following the institution of certainlegal actionsintheSupreme Courtof Cyprus {Admiralty Junsdiction) in or about June, 1984, defendants deducted from vessel's earnings collected by them the sum of £5,000 and informed owners that the said moneys were paid in 10 court tosecure thevessel'srelease from thevanous orders for the arrest of thevessel inthesaid actions». In October 1987, the plaintiffs inquired at the Registry of the Supreme Court where they were informed that the relevant actionshad been dismissed inJuly 1984, andthemoney lodged as 15 secunty were returnedtothe defendants Itisthecase for theplaintiffs thatthedefendants inbreach of the terms of their employment failed to return to the plaintiffs the aforesaid sum of five-thousand poundscollectedby themfromthe Registry of the Supreme CourtinJuly 1984 and«kept plaintiffs in 20 full ignorance of such collection» The plaintiffs then called upon the defendants to pay to their advocates the aforesaid sum but the defendants failed and/or refused to pay to the plaintiffs or their advocates same or at all Furthermore the defendants and without any authonty and 25 ignonng. as the plaintiffs allege, their express instructions to pay themoneys directtotheiradvocate atLimassol paid tothevessel's ex-captain the sum of six thousand US dollars «apparently inan attempt by defendants to secure a release of the balance of twothousandthree-hundredandfifty poundsandallaccruedinterest» 30 According to paragraph 9, the above payment came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs after the institution of this action, whereupon the plaintiffs instituted legal proceedings in Beirut against the said captain and secured the return of thesaid sum of six-thousand US dollars and the plaintiffs claim*35 «A Payment of the sum of £2,350 Β Damages for conversion by the defendants of the sum £5,000 -and/or for breach of agreement of employment, as explained above 404 tCX.R. Artaonagrippingτ. M M U T Maritime A-LofaweF. C. Interest a t such rate antr for suctr peiiuii as~the* Honourable Courtmay think fit. D.Anaccountof allmoneyscollectedby thedefendants for the benefit of plaintiffs. 5 E-An order for payment by the defendants of theamount found tobe due on the taking of such account». It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the moneys claimed derived from thecarriage ofgoodsbyseathatisfrom theuseofthe ship and thereafter these moneys were used for the ship. On the 10 basis therefore of the Administration of Justice Act of 1956, section l(l)(h) which provides that,«any claim arising out of any agreement relating to the carriage of goods in a ship or from the use orhireof aship»,these moneys derive from theuse of the ship were used for theship andconsequently thesubject matterof this 15 actionfalls within theAdmiralty jurisdiction of thisCourt. In my view this is a pure case of conversion of money by an agent having nothing whatsoever to do with the aforesaid statutory provision, namely section l(l)(h) invoked by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' claim is neithera claim arising out of any 20 agreement relating tothecarriage of goods inaship norfrom the use or hire of a ship. Itis clearly a case where the agent of a ship allegedly misused money that belonged to the ship-owner and therefore itfallswithinthejurisdiction of theordinary Courtsofthe landandnotwithin theAdmiralty jurisdiction of thisCourtwhich is 25 derived from Section 19(a) and Sections 29
(1)and 29
(2)(a) of the Courts of Justice Law (Law No. 14 of 1960), as amended, as regards the Law applicable which is that which was in force in England onthe 15thAugust 1960, as maybe modified, by any law of the Republic. 30 For all the above reasons the defendants' objection succeeds and the action is dismissed for want of jurisdiction with costs in favour of the defendants. Action dismissed with costsagainstplaintiffs. 405