The plaintiff claimed that it had not been paid for bunkers supplied in Singapore to two ships. It instituted proceedings in rem against the Iran Amanat as surrogate for those two ships, and had the ship arrested in the port of Geelong. The owner of the Iran Amanat applied for the ship to be released from arrest, on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to consider the claim. The shipowner said that it was not the “relevant person” (the person who would be liable on the plaintiffs claim in personam )3 because it was not the person who had incurred the debt in relation to the bunkers, as both ships were under time charter at the time the bunkers were supplied. At first instance, Tamberlin, J., held that the court had no jurisdiction and ordered that the ship be released from arrest.4 The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia reversed that decision on appeal.5 The High Court of Australia affirmed the decision of the Full Court, holding that the court did have jurisdiction.

Tamberlin, J.’s decision at first instance was based on his finding that the evidence available at that time did not persuade him on the balance of probabilities that the owner of the Iran Amanat had incurred any in personam liability to the plaintiff for the supply of the bunker fuel. The High Court of Australia held that Tamberlin, J., had asked himself the wrong question. The jurisdictional question was not whether the shipowner was liable in personam, but whether it would be liable—would be, that is, if the facts were as alleged by the plaintiff. In order to invoke the Admiralty jurisdiction of the court, it was not necessary for the plaintiff to prove at the outset that it had a cause of action sustainable at law.6 The court may only investigate the strength or weakness of the plaintiff s claim

404