Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
SOUTH AFRICA
Craig Forrest*
306. Giliam Johannes Jacobs v Blue Water and Others 1
Maritime claim—scope of maritime claim relating to the employment of a ship
The plaintiff instituted an action for compensation in damages in delict for injuries sustained while he was descending a gangplank from the Glasdowr to go ashore. The action alleged that the gangplank was hazardously precipitous at the time as a consequence of the vessel’s having been inappropriately ballasted. The third defendant, Artisan Serviced & Engineering, pleaded that the plaintiff’s claim qualifies as a “maritime claim” as defined in s.1(1) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act2 and must be proceeded with in terms of the court’s admiralty jurisdiction.3 In particular, that the claim is a maritime claim as it is “for, arising out of or relating to: (f) loss of life or personal injury caused by a ship or any defect in a ship or occurring in connection with the employment of a ship”.
Decision: Application allowed. Matter to be proceeded with as a maritime claim.
Held: (1) The ordinary meaning of “employment of the ship” is “the utilization [sic] of something”. Whilst deballasting is related to the use of the ship, it was the dangerous state of the gangplank, rather than the alleged reason for its having been hazardously precipitous that is the basis of the claim. The means of disembarkation
from a ship and the utilisation of such means are ordinary incidences of the use of a ship. This qualifies as an occurrence that happened in connection with “the employment of the ship”.
(2) The origins of the heads of maritime claim stated in the definition of maritime claim in s.1(1) are to be found largely in the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Seagoing Ships.4 Article 1(1) of the Convention provides that a maritime claims includes “loss of life or personal injury caused by any ship or occurring in connexion with the operation of any ship”. The Convention was also used in the United Kingdom such that there is such a close correlation between it and the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act5 “that it would be permissible to refer to the United Kingdom Act in interpreting ‘maritime claims’”.6
* Professor and Director of the Marine and Shipping Law Unit, TC Beirne School of Law, University of Queensland, Australia.
1. (1 March 2016) Case No: 11755/2005 (High Ct of South Africa (Western Cape)).
2. Act No. 105 of 1983.
3. Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act, No. 105 of 1983, s.7(2).
4. International Convention Relating to the Arrest of Sea-Going Ships (Brussels, 10 May 1952). Citing DJ Shaw, Admiralty Jurisdiction and Practice in South Africa, 8.
5. Act No. 105 of 1983.
6. Citing Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Co of Chicago v Greek Seamen’s Pension Fund 1989 (2) SA 515 (D), 525G (Thirion J).
182