Spamat S R L v The Owners and all person claiming an interest in the M/v Almirante Storni

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Clarke C.J.,Dunne J.,Baker J.
• Judgment Date: 29 June 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] IESCDET 78
• Date: 29 June 2020
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2020:000054 High Court record no: 2018 No. 8692 P Admiralty

IN THE MATTER OF THE M/V ALMIRANTE STORNI

BETWEEN

SPAMAT S R L

PLAINTIFF

AND

THE OWNERS

AND

ALL PERSON CLAIMING AN INTEREST IN THE M/V ALMIRANTE STORNI

DEFENDANTS

[2020] IESCDET 78

Clarke C.J.

Dunne J.

Baker J.

Supreme Court record no: S:AP:IE:2020:000054

Court of Appeal record no: A:AP:IE:2019:000297

High Court record no: 2018 No. 8692 P Admiralty

THE SUPREME COURT

DETERMINATION

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO WHICH ARTICLE 34.5.3° OF THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES

RESULT: The Court does not grant leave to the Plaintiff to appeal to this Court from the Court of Appeal

REASONS GIVEN:

ORDER SOUGHT TO BE APPEALED

COURT: Court of Appeal

DATE OF JUDGMENT OR RULING: 9 th March, 2020

DATE OF ORDER: 9 th March, 2020

DATE OF PERFECTION OF ORDER: 15 th April, 2020

THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL WAS MADE ON 28 th April, 2020 AND WAS IN TIME.

General Considerations

1 The general principles applied by this Court in determining whether to grant or refuse leave to appeal having regard to the criteria incorporated into the Constitution as a result of the Thirty-third Amendment have now been considered in a large number of determinations and are fully addressed in both a determination issued by a panel consisting of all of the members of this Court in B. S. v. Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] IESCDET 134 and in a unanimous judgment of a full Court delivered by O'Donnell J. in Quinn Insurance Ltd. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers [2017] IESC 73, [2017] 3 IR 812. It follows that it is unnecessary to revisit the new constitutional architecture for the purposes of this determination.

2 Furthermore, the application for leave filed and the respondent's notice are published along with this determination (subject only to any redaction required by law) and it is therefore unnecessary to set out the position of the parties.

3 Any ruling in a determination concerns whether the facts and legal issues meet the constitutional criteria identified above, is particular to that application, and is final and conclusive only to that extent and as between the parties.

4 The respondent opposes the grant of leave to appeal.

The Application

5 This is the application of Spamat S.R.L. (“the applicant”) for leave to appeal to this Court pursuant to the provisions of Article 34.5.3° of the Constitution from the order of the Court of Appeal of 9 March 2020 for the reasons given in a written judgment of 9 March 2020 of McGovern J. in Spamat S.R.L. v The Owners and All Persons Claiming an Interest in the M.V. Alimirante Storni [2020] IECA 58, dismissing the appeal against the decision of the High Court that the applicant was not entitled to enforce a debt for services rendered at port against her owners NSC Shipping, and all persons claiming an interest in the M.V. Almirante Storni (“the respondents”).

6 The respondent, a German limited liability partnership, and at the material time the demise charterer of the vessel under a Charter made 12 February 2018 and the disponent owner of the vessel, entered into a time charter with GK Shipping, a Greek company, on 5 February 2018.

7 The applicant claims €38,314.07 in respect of disbursements made for the operation or maintenance of the ship “Almirante Storni” (“the vessel”) contracted to be performed at port by GK Shipping at the port of Bari, Italy between 4 March 2018 and 13 March 2018.

8 The applicant had at or near the same time entered into a separate contract with the demise charterer for the performance of different services not the subject of the present claim.

9 The vessel was arrested under Courts Maritime Conventions Act 1989 as the claim was formulated as a “maritime claim” under the International Convention for the Unification of Maritime Law on the Arrest of Sea Going Ships 1952 (“the Arrest Convention”).

10 In a judgment delivered ex tempore on 24 May 2019, McDonald J. dismissed the claim on the grounds that the services had been ordered by GK Shipping, that the applicant was aware of the legal difference between GK Shipping and the owners of the vessel, and that it had not been established that the owners had a personal liability in respect of...