The High Court dismissed Atlas Baltic OÜ’s claim for €95,381.49 over agency and other services arranged for the vessel M/V Lady Magda, finding that the vessel’s owners were not parties to the contracts on which the claim was based. The court also held that neither the vessel nor the security provided for its release could be condemned for the claim. It said it would hear counsel later on any ancillary orders.
Mr Justice McGovern delivered the judgment on 18 July 2018. The claim was brought as a breach of contract claim for disbursements allegedly due for services at ports in Latvia and Estonia. The vessel was registered in and flew the flag of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Atlas Baltic had obtained a warrant to arrest the vessel in July 2017 on the basis that its claim was a maritime claim. The defendants entered an appearance, and security was provided for the vessel’s release. The judgment records that the vessel had since been sold. The defendants did not dispute the amount claimed or the invoices themselves, but said the invoices were addressed to Dennis Maritime Oy Limited (DM), a Finnish company, and that the owners had no liability to pay them.
The plaintiff’s replies to particulars said it had agreed to provide the services at DM’s request. Evidence for the plaintiff was that DM usually sent written appointments through its operations department. The plaintiff had sought payment from DM, agreed a deferred-payment arrangement with it in April 2017, and said DM later broke that arrangement and went into liquidation. The owners were copied on two demand letters addressed to DM. In a letter dated 11 May 2017, a representative for the owners said they were not the plaintiff’s clients’ debtors.
The plaintiff argued that it could recover against the vessel or the release security even though DM had requested the services. The defendants relied on authority that, for this type of claim, a proceeding against a vessel required personal liability on the owner’s part. The court considered whether the master had sought the services or had represented that he had authority to do so. It found no evidence supporting either proposition and said the plaintiff’s own evidence showed how the contracts were made.
The judge concluded that the owners had never been parties to the contracts and that there was no evidence of a contractual relationship between them and the plaintiff. The court said describing the claim as one for disbursements related to admiralty jurisdiction to arrest the vessel; it did not determine whether the vessel could be condemned for the claim. The claim was dismissed.