Supreme Court claims exclusive admiralty jurisdiction over marine insurance claims, dismissing District Court action.

[*136] 1976 February 7

(STYLIANIDES, P.D.G. & ARTEMIDES, D.J.)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF NICOSIA

I.B.S., Ltd. ,

Plaintiffs,

and

Insurance Company MINERVA LTD.,

Defendants.

(Action No. 3719/75).

Jurisdiction - Carriage of goods by sea - Claim based on marine insurance policy - It is an admiralty action falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court - Section 19(a) of the Courts of Justice Law, 1960 (Law 14 of 1960).

E. Lemonaris, for the Applicants.

D. Koutras, for the Respondents.

RULING

The ruling of the Court was delivered by:-

STYLIANIDES,

P.D.C.: The defendant in this [*137] action is an Insurance Company. The Writ of Summons was served on the defendants on

26.9.75. On 8.10.75 the defendant without entering appearance took out a summons whereby he prays "for an order of the Court setting aside the Writ of Summons and or the service thereof and or dismissing the action".

The grounds on which this application is based are

(a) Misnomer;

(b) That the District Court of Nicosia has no jurisdiction to entertain this action.

The plaintiff respondent opposed the application. We shall deal only with the second ground of the application as the first ground was expressly and or impliedly abandoned by the advocate of the applicant in the course of his address.

The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by Xanthos Koutsokoumnis, the accountant of Minerva Insurance Co., Ltd., the applicant. It is the allegation of the applicant that by virtue of section 19(a) of the Courts of Justice Law, 14/60 the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter, as the action is based on a marine policy of insurance.

In the affidavit in support of the opposition sworn by an advocate's clerk, it is alleged that the District Court of Nicosia has exclusive jurisdiction over the cause of action in this case. Mr. Koutras for the plaintiff respondent in his address contended that the claim of the plaintiffs has nothing to do either with [*138] a ship or with the carriage by ship. It is a civil dispute over goods which were insured by defendants for their safe carriage to Cyprus. That the goods were carried to Cyprus and they were at the material time at the port of Famagusta.

Section 19(a) of the Courts of Justice Law 14/60 reads as follows:

"19. The High Court shall, in addition to the powers and jurisdiction conferred upon it by the constitution, have exclusive original jurisdiction -

"(a) as a Court of Admiralty vested with and exercising the same powers and jurisdiction as those vested in or exercised by the High Court of Justice in England in its Admiralty jurisdiction on the day immediately preceding Independence Day".

The Admiralty jurisdiction of the Supreme Court dates back to 1893. The Supreme Court of Cyprus was established by the Courts of Justice Order, 1882 when this country was part of the Ottoman Empire but was administered by Great Britain. The Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act 1890 s. 2(2) provided:

"(2) The Jurisdiction of a Colonial Court of Admiralty shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be over the like places, persons, matters, and things, as the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court [*139] in England, whether existing by virtue of any statute or otherwise, and the Colonial Court of Admiralty may exercise such jurisdiction in like manner and to as full an extent as the High Court in England, and shall have the same regard as that Court to international law and the comity of nations ".

Section 12 of the same Act empowered Her Majesty The Queen in Council by order to direct that the Act should apply to any Court established by Her Majesty for the exercise of jurisdiction in any place out of Her Majesty's dominions which was named in the order as if that Court were a Colonial Court of Admiralty, and to provide for carrying into effect such application. By the Cyprus admiralty Jurisdiction Order, 1893, the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act 1890 was made applicable to the Supreme Court as if that Court were a Colonial Court of Admiralty and conferred on it the exclusive jurisdiction set out in the Act. The Courts of Justice Law 28/1935 section 12(a) provided that the Supreme Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction as a Colonial Court of Admiralty under the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890, or any Act amending or substituted for the same.

This provision was verbatim reproduced in the Courts of Justice Law 40/53. (Cap. 8 of the 1959 edition of Statute Laws of Cyprus).

This was the state of the law until the enactment of the Courts of Justice Law, 14/60. Section 19(a) widened [*140] the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the High Court in England was extended originally by the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925 section 22, and finally by the Administration of Justice Act, 1956, which repealed and 5 replaced the Act of 1925. The Law governing the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the High Court in England on the date prior to Independence Day i.e. "15.8.60" was the Administration of Justice Act 1956, section 1. This section provides

"1(1) The Admiraly Jurisdiction of the High Court especially as follows, that is to say, jurisdiction to hear and determine any of the following questions or claims -

"(a) .......................................................................................................................

"(h) Any claim arising out of any agreement relating to the carriage of goods in a ship or to the use or hire of a ship". In The St. Elefterio. Schwarz a Co.. (Grain), Ltd. v. St. Elefterio ex Arion (Owners) (1957) 2 All

E. R. 374 Willmer J. said at page 375.

"In my judgment the words of s.1(1) (h) of the Act of 1956, which I agree are materially different from the corresponding clause in the Act of 1925, are nevertheless wide enough to cover claims whether in contract or in tort arising out of any agreement relating to the carriage of goods in a ship". [*141]

The present action as it appears from general endorsement is based on an agreement dated 2.4.74. Photocopy of this document was produced by consent (see exhibit 1). Having gone through this document we find that it is a marine insurance policy covering the carriage of goods in the ship s/s "Nipponica" from Hong Kong, - Genoa to Nicosia, via Famagusta with transhipment.

The material part of this policy for the purpose of this application runs as follows "The Insurance aforesaid shall commence upon the said ship at and from as above and shall continue until she hath moored at anchor in good safety at her place of Destination and for such period afterwards not exceeding twenty-four hours from such mooring, and upon the Freight and Goods or Merchandise on board thereof from the loading of the said Goods or Merchandise on board the said ship or vessel at as above and until the said Goods or Merchandise be discharged and safely landed at as above".

By exhibit 2, a notice to the plaintiffs respondents, the agents of the ship A. L. Mantovani and Sons Ltd., informed the respondents that ship s/s "Victoria” arrived at Famagusta port on 29.6.74 from Genoa and the goods insured appeared to have been in the manifest with the respondents as consignees Ex s/s "Nipponica".

The aforesaid marine policy of insurance is to our mind a voyage policy. It relates to the carriage of goods in a ship, it provides for the indemnity of the insured in case of damage, loss etc., of the insured goods. [*142] (See Hardy Ivamy Marine Insurance second edition pages 4, 8 and pages 131-132).

The District Courts are inferior Courts created by Law (14/60). Their jurisdiction is defined and limited by ss.

21 and 22 of Law 14/60.

In our judgment this is an Admiralty action which falls within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction. The writ of summons and the service thereof are set aside. Respondents to pay the costs of this application to be assessed by the Registrar.

Application granted. Writ of summons set aside.