Summary And Default Proceedings In Rem

Published date01 October 2020
Subject MatterLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Court Procedure, Trials & Appeals & Compensation
Law FirmQuadrant Chambers
AuthorRobert Ward

OVERVIEW

Admiralty Registrar Davison recently handed down judgment in Premier Marinas v The Double Venus and The Santorini, a case in which the Registrar considers two aspects of Admiralty procedure that may require re-examination by the Civil Procedure Rules committee.

Robert Ward appeared for the Claimant, instructed by Elliot Bishop at Shoosmiths.

The Facts

The Claimant owns and operates marinas in the south of England. An Admiralty in rem claim was brought against two vessels in respect of which berthing fees remained unpaid. Those vessels were arrested.

After service of the claim, an application for default judgment was made on the basis that no acknowledgement of service had been filed. The owner of the vessels filed a late acknowledgement of service and the applications for default judgment were dismissed.

After exchange of pleadings, the Claimant sought to strike out the vessel owner's defence and counterclaim at a CMC on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable grounds or was incoherent. The Defendant failed to attend the remote hearing for the CMC and the application was stood over to trial.

The Judgment

At trial judgment was entered for the claimant, the Registrar holding that a debt presently due and owing to the Claimant had been proven.

The judgment is of interest for the Registrar's commentary on the procedure for default judgment and summary proceedings in Admiralty in rem claims.

Default Judgment

CPR rule 61.9(1) contains specific provision for default judgments for in rem claims which is substantially similar to CPR rule 12.3(1) for other claims. However, from 6 April 2020 the latter rule was amended to clarify that judgment could only be given if no acknowledgement of service had been filed "at the date on which judgment is entered".

No such amendment was made to r61.9(1).

The Registrar took the view that, in any event, r61.9(1) would only permit default judgment for an in rem claim in circumstances where there had been no acknowledgement of service at the time judgment was to be entered. In that regard he followed the decision of Andrew Baker J in Cunico Resources NV v Daskalakis [2018] EWHC 3382 (Comm), a decision in relation to r12.3(1) prior to its amendment.

One other difference between default judgment in Admiralty in rem proceedings and proceedings generally is that default judgment can only...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT