Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
AUSTRALIAN MARITIME LAW
Martin Davies*
CASES
1. Bibin v Mainfreight International Pty Ltd1
Admiralty jurisdiction—whether claim for post-discharge delivery of goods is a maritime claim
The applicant imported a container of building materials from China, which were unloaded at Port Botany in New South Wales. The applicant engaged the respondent to transport the container from Port Botany to its premises on the central coast of New South Wales. When the goods arrived at those premises, it was discovered that they were damaged. The applicant made a claim against the respondent in the Consumer and Commercial Division of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The respondent disputed that the claim fell within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because (among other reasons) it should be regarded as a maritime claim falling within admiralty jurisdiction.
Decision: The claim was not a maritime claim and did fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Held: (1) The Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), s.9 confers in personam federal admiralty jurisdiction in relation to maritime claims only on the Federal Court, the Federal Circuit Court, and the courts of the states and territories. Thus, if the present case were to be considered a maritime claim, it would not fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, as the Tribunal is not a state court.
(2) The Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth), s.4(3) defines “maritime claim” to include claims for loss or damage to goods carried by a ship (s.4(3)(e)) and claims arising out of an agreement that relates to the carriage of goods by a ship (s.4(3)(f)).
(3) The applicant’s claim was not connected with a ship or with international carriage of goods. It was a claim arising from the unloading of the container at Port Botany and its delivery at premises in New South Wales. Because the claim was entirely about inland carriage within New South Wales, it was not an admiralty claim, and so did fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Comment: The Tribunal accepted that, if the applicant had brought its claim against the shipping company that carried the container from China to Port Botany, as well as against the respondent, the claim would have been an admiralty one falling outside the
*Admiralty Law Institute Professor of Maritime Law, Tulane University Law School; Director, Tulane Maritime Law Center; Professorial Fellow, Melbourne Law School.
1. [2016] NSWCATCD 70.
2