Turks Shipyard Ltd v November, The Owners Of The Vessel

Where a ship repairer is instructed by a company connected with the vessel, the court may find that the company acted as agent for the owners, including as an agent for undisclosed principals. The agreement is construed objectively against its factual matrix, and an implied term may arise that the instructing party had authority to act for the owners.

A statutory claim in rem for ship repair work may proceed against owners who acknowledge service. A defendant wishing to dispute jurisdiction should use Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 11 within the prescribed period. A repairer who has possession of the vessel may also have a valid possessory lien, including after arrest.

The claimant shipyard repaired and painted the vessel “November” after instructions were given in connection with a proposed environmental project. The written arrangements identified Clean Marine Ltd (“CML”), while the vessel was owned, or beneficially owned, by Agamemnon Otero and Jay Fitzsimons.

CML did not participate at trial. Mr Otero disputed personal liability, contending that CML alone contracted with the claimant, that much of the work was unauthorised, and that the Admiralty Court lacked jurisdiction under section 21(4) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The claimant sought payment for repairs, painting and storage, together with an order for appraisement and sale and, alternatively, a declaration confirming its possessory lien.

1. Liability and authorisation. CML contracted with the claimant and gave instructions as agent for the vessel’s owners. The objective construction of the documents and surrounding circumstances showed that substantial repair work was authorised at the rates previously agreed. The request to postpone new works did not revoke authority to complete work already commenced. It amounted to a novation under which the claimant could complete the works needed to refloat the vessel.
2. The repair works invoiced at £91,230.60 were authorised, properly performed and reasonably priced. The painting charge of £11,670 was also recoverable and reasonable because painting was necessary before refloating to protect the hull from corrosion. The owners were liable, and Mr Otero became personally liable after acknowledging service as an owner. CML was liable both as contracting agent for undisclosed principals and, alternatively, as beneficial owner.
3. Admiralty jurisdiction. The court had jurisdiction under sections 20(1)(a) and 20(2)(n) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. Section 21 governed the mode of exercising that jurisdiction. Once an owner acknowledged service, the claim continued both in rem and in personam. A defendant disputing jurisdiction should apply under Part 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998; Mr Otero had not done so and could not belatedly rely on jurisdictional objections.
4. The court could look behind registered ownership to determine beneficial ownership. The evidence supported the conclusion that, if CML contracted in its own name, it did so as beneficial owner or trustee for the vessel’s owners, so that section 21(4) remained applicable.
5. Possessory lien and orders. The claimant had validly exercised a ship repairer’s possessory lien because the works were performed on the authority of the owners and the claimant retained possession. The lien survived arrest. Storage charges incidental to the repairs, or arising under contract, were recoverable.
6. Judgment was entered for the claimant for £91,230.60, £11,670 and storage charges of £720 per month until arrest. The court ordered appraisement and sale of the vessel and declared, in the alternative, that the claimant had validly exercised a possessory lien.