Jump to Content Jump to Main Navigation

You are looking at 120 of 22 results

Contributor: Turner, James M x
Clear All

Appendix 4 Administration of Justice Act, 1956 »

Sarah C. Derrington, James M. Turner
From: The Law and Practice of Admiralty Matters (2nd Edition)
Sarah Derrington, James M Turner QC

Appendix 1 Admiralty Court Act, 1840 »

Sarah C. Derrington, James M. Turner
From: The Law and Practice of Admiralty Matters (2nd Edition)
Sarah Derrington, James M Turner QC

Appendix 2 Admiralty Court Act, 1861 »

Sarah C. Derrington, James M. Turner
From: The Law and Practice of Admiralty Matters (2nd Edition)
Sarah Derrington, James M Turner QC

Appendix 7 Admiralty Court Forms »

Sarah C. Derrington, James M. Turner
From: The Law and Practice of Admiralty Matters (2nd Edition)
Sarah Derrington, James M Turner QC

6 Admiralty Procedure and the Arrest Process »

Sarah C. Derrington, James M. Turner
From: The Law and Practice of Admiralty Matters (2nd Edition)
Sarah Derrington, James M Turner QC
6.01 Claims in admiralty are usually commercial disputes between commercial parties and the practice and procedure of the Admiralty Court is intended to facilitate the resolution of those disputes in a timely and cost-effective manner. It is, however, the availability of the arrest process for many admiralty claims, and the particular procedures relevant to collision and limitation claims, which distinguish the practices and procedures of the Admiralty Court from those in the Commercial Court and which give Admiralty practice its unique features.1 This chapter is...

11 Arbitration Issues »

Sarah C. Derrington, James M. Turner
From: The Law and Practice of Admiralty Matters (2nd Edition)
Sarah Derrington, James M Turner QC
11.01 Arbitration has long been favoured as a dispute resolution mechanism by parties to maritime contracts. There are a number of reasons for this. First, arbitration has a degree of flexibility as to the manner and time in which a dispute may be heard and resolved that is not always available in the court system. Secondly, there is the possibility of choosing an arbitrator with particular expertise in the subject matter of the dispute which may thereby result in a quicker and cheaper resolution of it, particularly if complex expert evidence can be avoided....

Appendix 8 The Arrest Conventions of 1952 and 1999 »

Sarah C. Derrington, James M. Turner
From: The Law and Practice of Admiralty Matters (2nd Edition)
Sarah Derrington, James M Turner QC

8 Distribution of the Fund »

Sarah C. Derrington, James M. Turner
From: The Law and Practice of Admiralty Matters (2nd Edition)
Sarah Derrington, James M Turner QC
8.01 The establishment of the order of priority or the ranking of claims against the fund generated by the sale of the ship or other property by the Admiralty Marshal at the conclusion of Admiralty proceedings is one of the most important features of the Admiralty jurisdiction. The ranking of claims is necessary, or at least of greatest practical importance, where the fund is insufficient to meet all the judgments obtained against the ship. Whilst the Admiralty jurisdiction itself is governed by statute, the law as to the establishment of priorities is not.1 The...

Foreword »

Sarah C. Derrington, James M. Turner
From: The Law and Practice of Admiralty Matters (2nd Edition)
Sarah Derrington, James M Turner QC

5 General Maritime Claims »

Sarah C. Derrington, James M. Turner
From: The Law and Practice of Admiralty Matters (2nd Edition)
Sarah Derrington, James M Turner QC
5.01 Section 20(1)(a) of the Senior Courts Act (SCA) 1981 provides for the Admiralty Court to have jurisdiction to hear and determine any of the 18 ‘questions and claims’ listed in subs (2). That list reflects, with some additions, the list of maritime claims contained in art 1(1) of the Arrest Convention. It is a ‘closed’ list: in other words, unless it can be established that a particular claim falls squarely within one of the heads listed, the Court will not have admiralty jurisdiction in respect of that claim. 5.02 As mentioned in the introductory chapter, it...

1 Introduction »

Sarah C. Derrington, James M. Turner
From: The Law and Practice of Admiralty Matters (2nd Edition)
Sarah Derrington, James M Turner QC
1.01 Admiralty jurisdiction in England and Wales dates back to the early Middle Ages. Nowadays, however, it is derived in the first instance from the provisions of the Senior Courts Act (SCA) 19811 and encompasses both in rem and in personam actions. Some of those provisions give effect to the International Convention on the Unification of Certain Rules relating to the Arrest of Seagoing Ships 1952 (the Arrest Convention) and so are to be construed in its light.2 A new International Convention on the Arrest of Ships was adopted on 12 March 1999 (the Arrest...

10 Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims »

Sarah C. Derrington, James M. Turner
From: The Law and Practice of Admiralty Matters (2nd Edition)
Sarah Derrington, James M Turner QC
10.01 ‘Ships are different …’. The ‘difference’ addressed in the articles which bear that title1 is the privilege afforded to a shipowner (and others) in certain circumstances to limit liability arising out of a single occurrence in accordance with the tonnage of his ship. In all of the jurisdictions covered in this work, this can be achieved either by way of defence (binding only on the parties to the particular action) or by way of action for a decree (to ‘bind the world’),2 which may or may not (depending on the law of the country in question and/or the...

4 Maritime Liens (and ‘other Charges’) »

Sarah C. Derrington, James M. Turner
From: The Law and Practice of Admiralty Matters (2nd Edition)
Sarah Derrington, James M Turner QC
4.01 Although confidently described by Sir John Jervis in The Bold Buccleugh 1 as ‘simple and intelligible’, the law of maritime liens is in significant respects far from straightforward. Difficulties arise, as Brandon J put it in The Halcyon Skies,2 ‘because of the history of Admiralty jurisdiction’, and remain potentially significant over 165 years after Parliament first intervened to ease the jurisdictional pressure on the High Court of Admiralty. This is despite the availability for all practical purposes of statutory rights in rem in all cases in which...

2 The Nature and Scope of the Modern Admiralty Action »

Sarah C. Derrington, James M. Turner
From: The Law and Practice of Admiralty Matters (2nd Edition)
Sarah Derrington, James M Turner QC
2.01 The Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court, assigned by s 62(2) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to the Admiralty Court,1 is delineated in s 20(1) of that Act as follows: 2.02 In setting out the scope of Admiralty jurisdiction, the Senior Courts Act 1981 distinguishes between actions in rem and in personam. Thus s 21(1) provides that, subject to s 22, an action in personam may be brought in the High Court in all cases within its Admiralty jurisdiction. The facility to proceed in rem, on the other hand, is limited to maritime claims, and the identity of the...

7 Post-Arrest Procedure »

Sarah C. Derrington, James M. Turner
From: The Law and Practice of Admiralty Matters (2nd Edition)
Sarah Derrington, James M Turner QC
7.01 Immediately upon arrest, a ship becomes security in the custody of the court to await the result of the proceedings giving rise to the arrest. The ship remains in the custody of the court until released upon the provision of alternative security or sale by the court.1 It is to be noted in this respect that the Marshal has custody but not possession. Any pre-arrest rights and remedies based upon possession are not affected by the arrest.2 7.02 Once the property has been arrested, the Registrar issues standard directions ordering that the Admiralty Marshal may...

Preface to the First Edition »

Sarah C. Derrington, James M. Turner
From: The Law and Practice of Admiralty Matters (2nd Edition)
Sarah Derrington, James M Turner QC

Preface to the Second Edition »

Sarah C. Derrington, James M. Turner
From: The Law and Practice of Admiralty Matters (2nd Edition)
Sarah Derrington, James M Turner QC

9 Procedure in Collision Cases »

Sarah C. Derrington, James M. Turner
From: The Law and Practice of Admiralty Matters (2nd Edition)
Sarah Derrington, James M Turner QC
9.01 Traditionally, collision claims have been treated differently from other claims arising in the Admiralty jurisdiction. This tradition is continued by the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) which make special provision for collision claims in part 61.4. A collision claim may be commenced either in rem or in personam.1 If it is commenced in personam, the procedure applicable to claims proceeding in the Commercial List applies, subject to the particular provisions contained in rule 61.4 of the CPR. 9.02 A ‘collision claim’ is defined as a claim within s 20(3)(b) of the...

3 Proprietary Maritime Claims »

Sarah C. Derrington, James M. Turner
From: The Law and Practice of Admiralty Matters (2nd Edition)
Sarah Derrington, James M Turner QC
3.01 The Senior Courts Act 1981 provides that a claim may be brought as an action in rem against the ship or property to which the claim relates in any of the following cases:1 3.02 The types of claims encompassed by this section, discussed in more detail below, are concerned with questions of property and possession, and may be regarded as proprietary, or quasi-proprietary, in character. As such, the dispute is about the ship or property itself as opposed to merely being a dispute arising out of the utilization of the ship. Consistently with art 3(1) of the...

Appendix 5 Senior Courts Act, 1981 (UK) [latest version amended 2005] »

Sarah C. Derrington, James M. Turner
From: The Law and Practice of Admiralty Matters (2nd Edition)
Sarah Derrington, James M Turner QC