The Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court of Cyprus has exclusive jurisdiction to act as Admiralty Court. By virtue of\u00a0Sections 19(a) and 29(2)(a) of the Courts of Justice Law of 1960 (Law 14\/60), the Admiralty Court is vested with and exercises the same powers and jurisdiction as those vested in or exercised by the High Court of Justice in England in its Admiralty Jurisdiction on the day immediately preceding the day of Independence. In the exercise of such jurisdiction it applies the Law as applied in England on the day in question subject to the overriding provisions of the Constitution and save insofar as another provision is made by any Law of the Republic.<\/p>\n
Consequently, the English\u00a0Administration of Justice Act of 1956 (\u2018AJA 1956\u2019) Part I\u00a0defines the Admiralty jurisdiction of the Court. In particular,\u00a0Section 1(1) of AJA 1956\u00a0sets out the questions or claims which are heard and determined by the Admiralty Court. Further, the\u00a0Cyprus Admiralty Jurisdiction Order 1893\u00a0(\u2018the Rules\u2019) regulates the procedure before the Court. The Admiralty jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be invoked both by an action\u00a0in rem<\/em>\u00a0and by an action\u00a0in personam<\/em>. All admiralty actions are instituted by the issue of a writ of summons and it is always possible to combine an action\u00a0in rem<\/em>\u00a0with an action\u00a0in personam<\/em>\u00a0in the same writ.<\/p>\n Arrest of vessel and jurisdiction\u00a0in rem<\/em><\/p>\n The arrest of a ship is only possible in the case of an action\u00a0in rem<\/em>. Therefore, the filing of an action\u00a0in rem<\/em>\u00a0is a prerequisite for such an arrest. Once a claim falls within the scope of\u00a0Section 1(1), then\u00a0Section 3 of AJA 1956\u00a0automatically comes into operation to determine whether that claim can be brought by an action\u00a0in rem<\/em>. An action\u00a0in rem<\/em>\u00a0is an action against the vessel (the\u00a0res<\/em>) and the writ of summons must be served on the vessel herself. As a result, the physical presence of the vessel within the jurisdictional waters of Cyprus is necessary so that the Admiralty Court can assume jurisdiction\u00a0in rem<\/em>.<\/p>\n In\u00a0El Fath Co v. E.D.T. Shipping Ltd (1992) 1 CLR 1255, the Supreme Court held that the issue of a warrant for the arrest of a ship as well as the issue of a writ of summons of an action\u00a0in rem<\/em>\u00a0is possible even when the ship is found outside the jurisdiction of the Court. These, however, remain inactive until the ship comes within its jurisdiction, thereby enabling the service of the writ on her. This is because the jurisdiction\u00a0in rem<\/em>\u00a0of the Court is founded upon the service of the writ on the\u00a0res<\/em>\u00a0or upon its arrest and not at the time when these are issued by the Court (Altobeiqui v. M\/V Nada G. (1985) 1 CLR 543;\u00a0Cyprus Bureau of Shipping Ltd v. Farner Shipping Co. Ltd (1999) 1 CLR 478).<\/p>\n The Arrest Proceedings<\/p>\n An application for the arrest of a vessel can be filed on or at any time after the filing of an action\u00a0in rem<\/em>. The proceedings for the arrest are regulated by\u00a0Rules 50-59. The Court has a wide discretion to order the arrest of the vessel if it is satisfied that the Plaintiff is entitled to the arrest. The Plaintiff who wishes to arrest the Defendant ship must file an\u00a0ex-parte<\/em>\u00a0application which must be supported by an affidavit.<\/p>\n The affidavit must state the nature of the claim, and that the aid of the Court is required since the claim remains unsatisfied. At this stage it is not necessary for the Court to go into the merits of the action and decide whether the Plaintiff\u2019s factual or legal contentions are right or wrong.\u00a0Rule 50\u00a0gives an absolute right for the arrest of property once the Court is satisfied that there are issues that have to be tried between the Parties; it suffices to show that the Plaintiff has a right to have those issues tried. Generally, the Plaintiff must indicate that there is a question to be tried at the hearing \u2013 the term includes a requirement to indicate the facts which trigger the\u00a0in rem<\/em>\u00a0jurisdiction of the Court \u2013 and that on the facts there is a probability that the Plaintiff is entitled to relief (Breidi and Another v. The Ship Gloriana and Others (1982) 1 CLR 1;\u00a0El Fath Co v. E.D.T. Shipping Ltd (1992) 1 CLR 1255;\u00a0Rigas v. The Ship Baalbeck (1973) 1 CLR 159;\u00a0Cypamar Maritime Agencies v. The Ship Tiger (2001) 1 CLR 2159). In an action for wages, in an action for necessities, or for building, equipping or repairing any vessel, as well as in an action for bottomry, additional information must also be included in the affidavit as per\u00a0Rules 52 and 53.<\/p>\n Full and frank disclosure<\/p>\n Since the application is made\u00a0ex-parte<\/em>\u00a0the Plaintiff is required to make full and frank disclosure of all the material facts of the case which may influence the judgment of the Court on whether the arrest of the ship is justified under the circumstances. In the case of\u00a0Caspi Shipping Limited v. The Ship \u201cSapphire Seas\u201d (No. 2) (1997) 1 CLR 833, the Supreme Court clarified that simple compliance with the Rules does not release the person who applies\u00a0ex-parte\u00a0<\/em>from the obligation to disclose all the relevant information which would assist the Court to reach the right conclusion. However, it seems unnecessary for such disclosure to extend to further facts which are irrelevant to the request for the arrest (Abdul Hamid Borgol and Co. v. The Ship Akak Progress (1985) 1 CLR 672;\u00a0Cypamar Maritime Agencies v. The Ship Tiger (2001) 1 CLR 2159).<\/p>\n Security by the plaintiff<\/p>\n Once the Court is satisfied that the necessary requirements for the arrest of the ship are met, it will then require the Plaintiff to:<\/p>\n Failure to comply with the above requirements will automatically result in the release of the vessel. Once the warrant of arrest is issued it shall be served by the marshal or his officer in the manner prescribed by the Rules for the service of a writ of summons in an action\u00a0in rem<\/em>, and thereupon the property shall be deemed to be arrested. The order for the arrest must also state the exact amount of security that the Defendant may provide for the release of the vessel.<\/p>\n In aid of foreign proceedings<\/p>\n In\u00a0Nationwide Shipping Inc. v. The Ship \u201cAthena\u201d (2012) 1 CLR 2343, the Supreme Court held that the Admiralty Court does not have jurisdiction, under the\u00a0International Commercial Arbitration Law (Law 101\/87), to issue a warrant of arrest of a ship in aid or in support of an international arbitration. In that case the warrant of arrest was requested in support of arbitration proceedings in London. The Court indicated that such order could not remain in force, because the purpose of the arrest is to provide security in respect of the action\u00a0in rem<\/em>. Nevertheless, it seems that an arbitration clause does not in itself preclude a Plaintiff from arresting the ship. In\u00a0National Line of Cyprus S.A. v. The Ship \u201cSunset\u201d (1986) 1 CLR 393, it was held that an arbitration clause in a contract does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court but it merely gives the right to any other Party to such proceedings to apply for a stay of proceedings and reference of such dispute to arbitration.<\/p>\n In\u00a0Achelec Electronics Ltd v. Deutsche Seereederei (1992) 1 CLR 442, it was stated that although a foreign jurisdiction clause does not deprive the Cypriot Courts of their jurisdiction, strong reasons must be presented as to why such clause should be disregarded. The existence of an arbitration or a foreign jurisdiction clause must in any case be expressly disclosed when applying\u00a0ex-parte<\/em>\u00a0for the arrest; such information is considered as relevant for establishing the\u00a0in rem<\/em>\u00a0jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court, hence necessary for the Court to reach the right conclusion regarding the arrest. Non-disclosure of such a clause will result in the discharge of the order and the release of the vessel (Pan Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v. The Ship \u201cBlue Sky\u201d (2000) 1 CLR 139;\u00a0Vector Onega AG v. The Ship M\/V Girvas (1998) 1 CLR 354;\u00a0Caspi Shipping Limited v. The Ship \u201cSapphire Seas\u201d (No. 2) (1997) 1 CLR 833).<\/p>\n In aid of execution<\/p>\n It has been held that it is possible to arrest a ship, which is already under arrest in other proceedings, for the purpose of aiding the execution of a judgement (Perrin v. The Ship \u201cR.F. Potamac\u201d (1993) 1 CLR 145). The same is possible in the case of a\u00a0Mareva<\/em>\u00a0injunction. In\u00a0Linmare Shipping Co. Ltd v. Boustani (1981) 1 CLR 386, the Admiralty Court issued a\u00a0Mareva<\/em>\u00a0injunction for the freezing of assets within the jurisdiction. After the issuance of the judgement in favour of the Plaintiffs, the Court ordered that the\u00a0Mareva<\/em>\u00a0injunction should remain in force in aid of execution.<\/p>\n Caveat<\/em><\/p>\n Any person desiring to prevent the arrest of any property or the release of any property under arrest or the payment of any moneys out of Court may cause a\u00a0caveat<\/em>\u00a0to this end (Rules 65-73).<\/p>\n Release of the Vessel under Arrest<\/p>\n The release proceedings are regulated by\u00a0Rules 60-64. Any party may apply to the Court for the release of any property arrested and the Court or Judge may, by order, direct the release of such property upon such terms as to security or as payment of any costs of appraisement or removal or inspection or otherwise as the Court shall see fit.<\/p>\n Requirements for the release<\/p>\n An order of release may be issued on an application, without notice to any other Party if there is no\u00a0caveat\u00a0<\/em>entered against the release of the property, and:<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n