(1989)1989August 11 (DEMETRIADES.J.). SEATRAVELYACHTCHARTERLTD., Plaintiffs, v. THEVESSEL «SHER-KHAN»,LYINGATTHEPORTOFLIMASSOL, Defendants. (AdmiraltyAction No. 153/82). Admiralty—Arrestofship —Applicationforherdischarge—Applicant must show that the warrantfor arrest was issued on insufficient grounds —In this case thefactsrelied upon couldjustify, perhaps, thesettingasideofthe serviceofthe warrant, butnot theissueof the warrant. The application fordischargingthearrest oftheshipwasbased on the following allegations, i.e. that the security filed was not in accordance wi:h the termsoftheorder, thatthe orderwasdrawn up before thefilingofthesecurityandtheorderwasexecutedat Paphos andnotatLimassolasisprovided.TheprincipleappliedbytheCourt 10 in dismissingthe application appears sufficiently inthe hereinabove headnote. Application dismissed withcosts. Application. Application by defendants for an order discharging the arrest of 15 the vessel «Sher-Khan» and directing her release. M. Montanios, for the applicants - defendants. G. Michaelides, for the respondents - plaintiffs. Cur. adv. vult. DEMETRIADESJ. readthe following ruling. Bythisapplication 2 0 theapplicants-defendants applyforanorderdischargingthearrest of the ship and directing her release. 492 1C.L.R. SeaTravelv. Vessel«Sher-Khan» Demetriades J. The facts on which the application is based appear in sub paragraphs(ii)-(vi)ofparagraph 3oftheaffidavit filedinsupport oftheapplicationandtheyread:5 «(H) The Bank Guarantee for £1,500.-which wasfiled on 17.7.1982 on behalf of the Plaintiffs by National Bank of GreeceS.A.isnotthesecuritybondorderedbytheCourton 15.7.1982inthatitwasgivenonlyforalimitedperiodi.e.until 16.1.1983andinthatitswordingandscopedidnotcomply withthesaidCourtOrder. 10 (iii)Contrary to the aforesaid Court Order, thewarrantof arrestwasdrawnupbeforethePlaintiffs filed asecuritybond onthesumof£1,500i.e.itwasdrawnupon15.7.1982and onthisdaytheRegistraroftheCourtwrotetotheAdmiralty Marshal enclosingsuchwarrant. 15 (iv)Whereasthesaidordercommandedandauthorisedthe AdmiraltyMarshaltoarresttheDefendant shipwhilelyingat the Limassolport, the Marshalunlawfully arrested herwhile lyingattheportofPaphos. 20 (v)ThesaidwarrantofarrestwasnotservedbytheMarshal or his officer and the Marshal has not, immediately after service, forwarded a certificate of servicetothe Registrarof theCourt,asitappearsfromtherecordoftheseproceedings. (vi)ThesaidwarrantofarrestwasservedontheDefendant shipatthePortofPaphosandnotatthePortofLimassol*. 25 Counselfortheapplicantsarguedthatthewarrantofarrestmust bedischarged forthreereasons: (a)Thebankguaranteegivenincompliancewithparagraph4(c) oftheOrderwasforalimitedduration,i.e.itexpiredonlb.l.1983 instead of being of unlimited duration. The fact that prior to its 30 expirationthebankgaveanotheronewhichgavecoveragetillthe final determination oftheactionisimmaterial. (b) The drawn up order issued by the Registry was dated 15.7.1982 and the bankguaranteewasfiled on 17.7.1982.This wasinbreachofthetermsofparagraph4(c). 35 (c)TheorderwasexecutedatPaphosandnotatLimassolPort astheorderprovided. For a warrant of arrest to be discharged and the ship to be 493 DemetriadesJ. SeaTravelv.Vessel«Sher-Khan»
(1989)released,itmustbeshownthatthewarrantofarrestwasissuedon insufficient grounds. Though the grounds put forward by the applicantsmayshowgoodcausefordischargingtheserviceofthe orderofthewarrantofarrest,somethingtowhichIamnotcalled upon todecide, Ifindthatnogroundsatallwereputforward for .5 thedischargeofthewarrantofarrestforthereleaseoftheship. Forthesereasons,theapplication isdismissedwithcosts. Applicationdismissedwithcosts. 494