clr/1989/1989_1_88.pdf

(1989)1989 February9 (A.LOIZOU, P.) SEAISLANDTRAVEL&TOURSLIMITED, Plaintiffs. AND 1.M.T.GALAXIAS,NOWLYINGATTHEPORTOFLIMASSOL,

1. UNITEDBROTHERSSHIPPING CO.INC., Defendants, (AdmiraltyAction No. 86/88). Admiralty —Sale ofship under arrestpendente lite—Itshould notbe ordered asamatterofcoursemerely forrelievingthearrestingparty ofexpenses —Ship valuedatafewmilliondollars, whilsttheclaimis for £30,000 —In theabsence ofother pressing grounds, theship should notbesold. 5 The facts of this case sufficiently appear in the hereinabove headnote. Application dismissed. Costs against applicantsandinfavourofdefendants 1.No orderastocostsasregardsdefendant
2. 10 Casesreferred to: Almyr Maritime S.A. v. The cargo on board the Ship •Almyrta*

(1975)1C.L.R. 116; Kyrmizoudes v. TheShip Philipoupolis

(1978)1C.L.R.

1. Application. 15 Application by plaintiffs for the sale of the defendant ship pendente lite. A. Theofilou, for applicants-plaintiffs. C. Velaris with A. Paschalides, for respondents 1 - defendants
2. 88 20 1C.L.R. SeaIslandv.M.T.Galaxias L. Papaphilippou, for respondents 2 -defendants
3. Cur.adv. vult. A.L01Z0UP.readthefollowingjudgment.Soonafterthe filing of the action and the issue of a warrant of arrest of the defendant 5 'ship,an application for the sale oftheshippendente litewasfiled bytheplaintiffs whichwasopposed bytheownersofdefendant 1, whereas defendants 2,thecharterersofthe defendant shipfiled a notice«intendingtosupporttheapplicationoftheplaintiffs forthe saleof theship 'Galaxias'pendente lite». 10 The main ground of opposition tothe saleisthatthe defendant Ship and its owners owed nothing to the plaintiffs and that any claimtheyhaveshouldbedirectedtoothersandnotagainstthem, and that itistoo earlyfor the Court todeal with such an issue. Theapplication wasbased mainlyonthefact thatthe expenses 15 for the maintenance of the ship were mounting because of its thirty-five membercrew.That,however, hasbeenresolvedbythe repatriation of the crew of the ship at the expense of her owners and indeed thatshould bethepropercoursetobefollowed inthe case of the arrest of a ship in which there is no likelihood of 20 speedily resolving the dispute between the claimants and an arrested ship, and not bailed out. In fact the expenses for the maintenance of the ship and those left aboard as skeleton crew were, untilrecently, bom bythe owners,who forreasons beyond their power, however, and inparticular because of the issue of a 25 Mareva injunction, were forced to stop paying such expenses amounting to about two-thousand five-hundred pound per month. No doubt a person arresting a-ship hasto bear the costs of the arrestandtheissueofan orderforsalependenteliteshouldnotbe 30 taken as a matter of course for the sake of relieving the arresting partyoftheexpensesitundertakestoincurwhenseekingtheissue ofa warrantof arrest. Moreover the claim of the plaintiffs against the owner is so stronglycontested thatitwouldbeunfairtodirectthesaleofaship 35 ofavalueofovera fewmilliondollarsforthesakeofaclaiminthe region of thirty-thousand pounds, there being no other pressing grounds, such as the disproportionate costing of the daily expenses of keeping the ship under arrest or her deteriorating owingto being under arrest for a longperiod or thatthe cargois 40 perishing. (See inter alia Almyr Maritime S.A., v. The Cargo on 89 A. Loizou P. SeaIsland v. Μ.T. Galaxias

(1989)Board theShip *Almyrta»

(1975)1 C.L.R. 116; andKyrmizoudes v. TheShip Philipoupolis

(1978)1C.L.R. 526). Foralltheabove reasonstheapplicationforsalependenteliteis dismissed with costs against the applicants-plaintiffs, infavour of respondents 1 -defendants 1, and with no order as to costs in 5 favour of respondents2- defendants 2. Application dismissed. Order for costsasabove. 90