Premier Marinas Ltd v Owner(s) Of "Double Venus" and "Karma"

In an in rem Admiralty claim, judgment in default should not be entered where an acknowledgment of service or defence has been filed before judgment, even if it was filed out of time. The court should adopt the same approach under the Admiralty default-judgment rule as under the materially similar general rule, where the difference appears to result from an oversight. An unrepresented party’s pleaded case should not be struck out merely because it is poorly drafted unless it discloses no reasonable grounds for defending. Summary judgment is unavailable in an Admiralty claim in rem under the Civil Procedure Rules. Where the debt is proved and no legitimate defence or set-off is established, the court may order appraisement and sale of the vessel.

The claimant, a marina operator, brought two in rem claims against vessels for unpaid marina dues. The vessels were arrested and the claimant applied for judgment in default after acknowledgments of service had not been filed within the prescribed period. Before the applications were determined, the owner filed acknowledgments of service and purported defences and counterclaims.

The court refused default judgment, directed the further conduct of the claims, considered and declined to strike out the defences at an interlocutory stage, and proceeded to trial. The owner did not attend, but requested that the claims be decided on the evidence already supplied. The central issues were whether the debts were proved and whether the owner had any defence, set-off or viable counterclaim.

1. Default judgment. The applications for judgment in default were properly refused. Although CPR rule 61.9(1) did not contain the recent wording added to CPR rule 12.3(1), the court followed Cunico Resources NV v Daskalakis [2019] EWHC 3382 (Comm), which had been followed in Clements Smith v Berrymans Lace Mawer Service Co. & Anor [2019] EWHC 1904 (QB). Judgment in default should be entered only where, at the date of judgment, no acknowledgment of service or defence has been filed and the relevant period has expired. The procedural difference between Admiralty and Queen’s Bench claims did not justify a different approach. The omission from rule 61.9(1) was likely an oversight.
2. Pleading and summary judgment. The owner’s defence and counterclaim were not so incoherent that they disclosed no reasonable grounds for defending. The court had to take account of her unrepresented status under CPR rule 3.1A. Summary judgment was unavailable in an Admiralty claim in rem by virtue of CPR rule 24.3(2)(b). The court observed that this restriction appeared anomalous and might merit the attention of the Rules Committee.
3. Merits. The claimant proved the amounts due under the berthing agreements. There was no agreement for free berthing. The claimant had not unlawfully obstructed any sale or removal of the vessels and was contractually entitled to suspend services and, if necessary, retain possession while marina dues remained unpaid. The owner’s complaints were insufficiently particularised, unsupported, unquantified or legally irrelevant, and did not establish a defence or set-off.
4. Disposition. The debts were due and owing and there was no defence to either claim. The court ordered the usual appraisement and sale of the vessels. The ordinary 21-day appeal period was extended by seven days.

This was a first-instance decision. The judgment records that an earlier in personam County Court judgment concerning Double Venus had proved difficult to enforce and the proceedings had effectively been abandoned. The present in rem claims were subsequently issued in the Admiralty Court.