FOOTNOTES

  1. By the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Amendment Act 87 of 1992.
  2. Section 1(1).
  3. Admiralty Jurisdiction and Practice in South Africa at 86.
  4. 1986 (1) SA 714 (D).
  5. Ibid at 717I-J.
  6. 1987 (3) SA 794 (C) at 801I-J.
  7. Crookes & Co v Agricultural Co-operative Union Ltd 1922 AD 423 at 441-2; Trivett & Co. (Pty) Ltd and Others v Wm Brandt’s Sons & Co. Ltd and Others 1975 (3) SA 423 (A), and Beaver Marine (Pty) Ltd v Wuest 1978 (4) SAA 263 (A) at 274.
  8. Adopted, inter alia, in the cases of Oriental Commercial and Shipping Co Ltd v MV Fidias (op cit at 718G-H); Transol Bunker BV v MV Andrico Unity and Others: Grecian Mar SRL v MV Andrico Unity and Others 1987 (3) SA 794 (A) at 801I-J, and Brady-Hamilton Stevedore Co and Others v MV Kalantiao 1987 (4) SA 250 (D) at 253F-H and approved by the Appellate Division in Transol Bunker BV v MV Andrico Unity and Others: Grecian Mar SRL v MV Andrico Unity and Others 1989 (4) SA 325 (A) at 336B.
  9. This is the effect of the phrase in the section "in so far as it can be applied" when read together with s 6(2) -- see Staniland ‘Should a Seaman Sue for his Wages as a Favoured Litigant?’ 1986 Industrial Law Journal vol 7 part 3 451 at 452-3.
  10. (1850) 3 W Rob 220, a decision confirmed on appeal (1850-1) 7 Moo PC 267.
  11. 14th ed (1901) at 1012
  12. (1850-1) 7 Moo PC 267 at 284.
  13. "Admiralty Jurisdiction and the Maritime Lien: an historical perspective" (1968) 7 Western Ontario Law Review 173 at 198.
  14. "The Origin and Nature of Maritime Liens" (1930) 4 Tulane Law Review 381 at 406.
  15. Harmer v Bell, The Bold Buccleugh (1850-1) 7 Moo PC 267 at 285.
  16. [1897] P 226 at 242.
  17. [1980] AllER 197 (PC) at 202f-g.
  18. See too, in this regard, Marais J's comments in Transol Bunker BV v MV Andrico Unity and Others: Grecian Mar SRL v MV Andrico Unity and Others 1987 (3) SA 794 (C) at 821C-D.
  19. [1922] P 259 at 273.
  20. Maritime Liens Vol 14 British Shipping Laws (1980) at 10 footnote 59.
  21. See generally Thomas op cit at 31-2; Price "Maritime Liens" (1941) LQR 409 at 414-5, and Dillon & Van   Niekerk Maritime Law and Marine Insurance: Selected Topics Chapter 1 at 14.
  22. [1946] P 135.
  23. Ibid at 150.
  24. Op cit at 715I.
  25. 1985 (4) SA 133 (N).
  26. Ibid at 142B-C.
  27. Transol Bunker BV v MV Andrico Unity and Others: Grecian Mar SRL v MV Andrico Unity and Others 1987 (3) SA 794 (C).
  28. Ibid at 821D-F.
  29. 1984 (4) SA 647 (N).
  30.   The Law of Admiralty 2nd ed at 36.
  31. Op cit at 652G-H.
  32. Mansfield "Maritime Lien" (1888) LQR 379 at 381.
  33. Sheen J in The Father Thames [1979] 2 Lloyd's Rep 364 at 368.
  34. For a comprehensive description of these effects see the judgment of Marais J in the case of Transol Bunker BV v MV Andrico Unity and Others: Grecian Mar SRL v MV Andrico Unity and Others 1987 (3) SA 794 (C) at 811F-G, 819A, 821D.
  35. Staniland "Should foreign maritime liens be recognised?" (1991) 108 SALJ 293.
  36. Section 11.
  37. See the discussion on this aspect in relation to each of the maritime liens.
  38. Op cit at 586.
  39. Brooklyn House Furnishers (Pty) Ltd v Knoetze and Sons 1970 (3) SA 264 (A) at 270E; United Building Society v Smookler's Trustees and Golombik's Trustee 1906 TS 623 at 626-7.
  40. Orbit Motors (Pty) Ltd v Reeds (Cape) Limited 1975 (2) SA 333 (C).
  41. Brooklyn House Furnishers (Pty) Ltd v Knoetze and Sons (op cit at 270F).
  42. Section 1(1)(y).
  43. Joubert (ed) LAWSA Vol 15 at 86.
  44. See the discussion on this aspect in relation to each of the maritime liens.
  45. Section 3(4)(a) of the Act.
  46. Section 11 of the Act.
  47. See Nienaber J's remarks (above) about the legislature's failure to provide a definition of the phrase "maritime lien".
  48. Staniland "The Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act and the Maritime Claim of a Saudi Arabian Necessaries Man" (1986) 103 SALJ 350 at 354.
  49. Thomas op cit at 13 and the authorities cited therein.
  50. Admiralty Court Act 1840 (3 & 4 Vict c 65).
  51. The Mary Anne (1865) LR 1 A & E 8; The Sara (1889) 14 App Cas 209; The Castlegate [1893] AC 38.
  52. Op cit at 717-G.
  53. Ibid at 717I-718F
  54. Ibid at 715F-G.
  55. See for example the cases of Oriental Commercial and Shipping Co Ltd v MV Fidias (op cit at 715F-G); Southern Steamship Agency Inc and Another v MV Khalij Sky 1986 (1) SA 485 (C) at 491J; Transol Bunker BV v MV Andrico Unity and Others: Grecian Mar SRL v MV Andrico Unity and Others 1987 (3) SA 794 (C) at 805J-806A, and Transol Bunker BV v MV Andrico Unity and Others: Grecian Mar SRL v MV Andrico Unity and Others 1989 (4) SA 325 (A) at 331G-H, though admittedly this was not necessary for deciding the disputes before the courts on these occasions.
  56. "Maritime Liens" 1941 Vol LVII LQR 409.
  57. Ibid at 409.
  58. Op cit at 5.
  59. "The Admiralty Jurisdiction Act and the Claim of a Saudi Arabian Necessaries Man' (1986) 103 SALJ 350 at 355.
  60. "Should foreign maritime liens be recognised?" (1991) 108 SALJ 293.
  61. Op cit at 715F-G.
  62. See the discussion "Recognition of other categories of claims as giving rise to maritime liens"  relating to the "uncertain" maritime liens in English law.
  63. "Admiralty Jurisdiction in South Africa" 1982 Acta Juridica 30 at 40.
  64. Section 55 of the Merchant Shipping Act which re-enacted ss 458 and 459 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854 as extended by s 9 of the Admiralty Court Act of 1861.
  65.   Section 567 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894 which re-enacted s 455 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854 and provided that the receiver should, in respect of his fees and expenses, have the same rights and remedies as a salvor.
  66. Section 513 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854 provided that such damage should be a charge on the maritime res and would be recoverable in the same manner as salvage.
  67. "Should foreign maritime liens be recognised?" (1991) 108 SALJ 293.
  68. Oriental Commercial and Shipping Co. Ltd. V MV Fidias 1986 (1) SA 714 (D) at 715F-H.
  69. See the discussion relating to "established" and "uncertain" maritime liens.
  70. Section 1(1)(e).
  71. Admiralty Court Act 1840 (3 & 4 Vict c 65), s 6.
  72. (1850) 3 W Rob 220 at 229, a decision confirmed on appeal (1850-1) 7 Moo PC 267 by the Privy Council.
  73. [1897] AC 97 at 106.
  74. Admiralty Court Act 1840 (3 & 4 Vict c 65).
  75. Section 6: "The High Court of Admiralty shall have jurisdiction to decide all claims and demands whatsoever in the nature of ... damage received by any ship or sea-going vessel,... and to enforce payment thereof, whether such ship or vessel may have been within the body of a county, or upon the high seas, at the time when the ... damage [was] received, ... in respect of which such claim is made."
  76. The Sara (1889) 14 AC 209 at 216.
  77. Admiralty Court Act 1861 (24 Vict c 10).
  78. The Robert Pow (1863) B & L 99 quoted in Thomas op cit at 105.
  79. Section 7: "The High Court of Admiralty shall have jurisdiction over any claim for damage done by any ship."
  80. This interpretation was accepted by Lord Herschell in Currie v M'Knight (op cit at 108).
  81. The Eschersheim [1976] 2 Lloyd's Rep 1 (HL) at 9.
  82. Thomas op cit at 105 and the authorities cited therein.
  83. Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Amendment Act 87 of 1992 .
  84. Section 1(1)(e).
  85. The provision reads, "damage caused by any ship either in collision or otherwise…".
  86. Op cit at 105.
  87. Ibid at 131.
  88. Currie v M'Knight (I\op cit at 107).
  89. Ibid at 101.
  90. Ibid at 106-7.
  91. The Tolten [1946] P 135 at 146; The Tervaete [1922] P 259 at 270; The Eschersheim [1976] 2 Lloyd's Reports 1 (HL).
  92. The Druid (1842) 1 W Rob 391 appears to be the earliest authority where concurrence between the liability of a ship and the personal liability of the shipowner was categorically stated and it was followed in The Parlement Belge (1880) 5 PD 197.
  93. Bamford The Law of Shipping and Carriage in South Africa at 67; J.T. Rennie & Sons v Minister of Railways & Harbours 1913 NPD 396 at 415.
  94. In broad terms a charter-party is a contract for the hire of a ship in terms of which possession and control is transferred to the charterer, and the master and crew are engaged by the charterer and are not the servants of the ship-owner. See Sandeman v Scurr (1866) LR 2 QB 86.
  95. Thomas op cit at 129 and the authorities cited therein.
  96. Act 57 of 151, s 322.
  97. The Sylph (1867) LR 2 A & E 24.
  98. "Should foreign maritime liens be recognised?" (1991) 108 SALJ 293 at 302-4.
  99. Op cit at 132.
  100. [1946] P 135 (CA) at 147.
  101. Ibid at 302-4.
  102. Legal Insurance Co. Ltd v Botes 1963 (1) SA 608 (A).
  103. Ibid at 304.
  104. For an overview of the relevant legislation see Rabie & Lusher "South African Marine Pollution Control Legislation" 1986 Acta Juridica 161.
  105. Staniland "Towards a New Remedy for Pollution of the Sea" (1989) 1 Marine Policy Reports 151.
  106. Maritime Liens and Claims (1985) at 72.
  107. Price The Law of Maritime Liens (1940); Thomas op cit, and Jackson Enforcement of Maritime Claims (1985).
  108. [1974] 2 Lloyd's Rep 188.
  109. [1976] 2 Lloyd's Rep 1 at 9; [1976] 1 AllER 920.
  110. Thomas op cit at 134.
  111. 261(1) --
    "The owner of a ship, whether registered in the Republic or not, shall not, if any loss of life or personal injury to any person, or any loss or damage to any property or rights of any kind, whether movable or immovable, is caused without his actual fault or privity …"
  112. 51 of 1957, s 255
    1. Whenever by the fault of two or more ships damage or loss is caused to one or more of them or to the cargo or freight of one or more of them or to any property on board one or more of them, the liability to make good the damage or loss shall be in proportion to the degree in which each ship was at fault: Provided that --
      1. if, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it is not possible to establish different degrees of fault, the liability shall be apportioned equally; and
      2. nothing in this section shall operate so as to render any ship liable for any loss or damage to which her fault has not contributed; and
      3. nothing in this section shall affect the liability of any person under any contract, or shall be construed as imposing any liability upon any person from which he is exempted by any contract or by any provision of law, or as affecting the right of any person to limit his liability in the manner provided by law.
    2. For the purposes of this chapter, references to damage or loss caused by the fault of a ship shall be construed as including references to any salvage or other expenses, consequent upon that fault, recoverable at law by way of damages.
  113. Section 256
    Damages for personal injury --
    1. Whenever loss of life or personal injuries are suffered by any person on board a ship owing to the fault of that ship and of any other ship or ships, the liability of the owners of the ships concerned shall be joint and several.
    2. Nothing in this section shall be construed as depriving any person of any right of defence on which, independently of this section, he might have relied in an action brought against him by the person injured, or any person entitled to sue in respect of such loss of life, or shall affect the right of any person to limit his liability in cases to which this section relates in the manner provided by law.
  114. Section 4(2) of the Apportionment of Damages Act 1956 provides that "[N]othing in this Act contained shall derogate in any manner from the provisions of any law relating to collisions or accidents at sea, ...".
  115. The Alexander (1812) 1 Dods 278.
  116. The Orphans (1871) LR 3 A & E 308.
  117. Thomas op cit at 135.
  118. Section 1(1) "... any claim for, arising out of or relating to --
    1. ‘the employment of any master, officer or seaman of a ship in connection with or in relation to a ship, including the remuneration of any such person, and contributions in respect of any such person to any pension fund, provident fund, medical aid fund, benefit fund, similar fund, association or institution in relation to or for the benefit of any master, officer or seaman';"

    Compare this with the original section under the 1983 Act, 1(1)(n) which read "any claim by a master or member of the crew of a ship arising out of his employment...".

  119. Section 10 of the Admiralty Court Act of 1861 (22 & 25 Vic c 10) .
  120. The Castlegate [1893] AC 38 at 52.
  121. Wells v Osman (1704) 2 Ld Raym 1044 at 1045 quoted in Thomas op cit at 170 at footnote 15.
  122. The Mary Anne (1865) LR 1 A & E 8; The Heinrich Björn (1886) 11 App Cas 270; The Sara (1889) 14 App Cas 209, and The Halcyon Skies [1977] 1 QB 14 at 28F-30F.
  123. The Halcyon Skies [1977] 1 QB 14 at 31E.
  124. Merchant Shipping Act 57 of 1951, s 138.
  125. The Halcyon Skies (op cit at 22D).
  126. See the definition section quoted supra at footnote 118..
  127. Howe v Napier (1766) 4 Burr 1944 quoted in Thomas op cit at 171 footnote 28.
  128. The section reads, "[T]he High Court of Admiralty shall have jurisdiction over any claim by a seaman of any ship for wages earned by him on board the ship, whether the same be due under a special contract or otherwise ...".
  129. Staniland "Should a Seaman Sue as a Favoured Litigant?" Industrial Law Journal 451 at 465 and the authorities cited therein.
  130. Act 57 of 1951, as amended.
  131. Thomas op cit at 182; The Halcyon Skies [1971] 1QB 14 at 22-3.
  132. Thomas op cit at 178.
  133. The British Trade [1924] P 104 at 108-9.
  134. Section 2.
  135. Thomas op cit at para 321 for a list of examples of claims recognised under this heading.
  136. Staniland op cit at 472.
  137. The Halcyon Skies [1977] 1 QB 14 at 31G.
  138. Section 117.
  139. 1989 (2) SA 514 (D).
  140. Ibid at 533B-F.
  141. The Castlegate [1893] AC 38 at 52.
  142. Rule 3(4).
  143. Thomas op cit at 318.
  144. The Aline (1839) 1 W Rob 111.
  145. The Castlegate [1893] AC 38.
  146. The Rigby Grove (1843) 2 W Rob 52.
  147. Merchant Shipping Act 1844 (7 & 8 Vict c 112), s 16.
  148. (1864) B & L 281 at 285.
  149. The William Tell [1892] P 337.
  150. Havelock v Davidson (1919) 40 NLR 290.
  151. Section 134(1).
  152. [1904] P 422 at 428.
  153. Section 1(1) "... claim for, arising out of or relating to --
    1. ‘payments or disbursements by a master, shipper, charterer, agent or any other person for or on behalf of or on account of a ship or the owner or charterer of a ship'...".
  154. (1865) LR 1 A & E 8.
  155. Section 191.
  156. (1889) 14 App Cas 209.
  157. For the provisions of the subsection refer to footnote 57 in Thomas op cit at 201.
  158. Section 143(2).
  159. Thomas op cit at 193-4.
  160. (1868) LR 2 A & E 65 at 75.
  161. Op cit at 234.
  162. [1893] AC 38.
  163. The Limerick (1876) 1 PD 411 at 413.
  164. Merchant Shipping Act of 1889, s 1.
  165. [1893] AC 38.
  166. (1889) 14 App Cas 209.
  167. The Castlegate (op cit at 51).
  168. Thomas op cit at 357.
  169. Ibid at 203.
  170. [1897] P 226.
  171. (1)  "any claim for, arising out of or relating to --
    1. salvage, including salvage relating to any aircraft and the sharing or apportionment of salvage and any right in respect of property salved or which would, but for the negligence or default of the salvor or a person who attempted to salve it, have been salved; ...".
  172. Section, 1(1)(ii)(j),
    "any claim for or in the nature of salvage, including any claim relating to the sharing or apportionment of salvage and any claim by any person having a right in respect of property salved or which would but for the negligence or default of the salvor or would be salvor have been salved; ...".
  173. Transol Bunker BV v MV Andrico Unity and Others 1989 (4) 325 (A) at 333C-D.
  174. Thomas op cit at 152.
  175. [1901] P 304 Gorell Barnes J at 314.
  176. ‘Georgetta Lawrence' v ‘Calcutta' (1878) 8 Buch 102 at 105; The Charlotte (1848) 3 W Rob 68.
  177. ‘Georgetta Lawrence' v ‘Calcutta' (1878) 8 Buch 102 at 105; The Annapolis (1861) Lush 295 at 355; The Magdalen (1861) LJ Adm 22.
  178. Maytom v ‘Harry Escombe' 1920 AD 187 at 194; The Zephyr (1827) 2 Hag Adm 43: The Cayo Bonito [1904] P 310; The Lomonosoff [1921] P 97.
  179. ‘JW Sauer', Master etc of v ‘Sellasia', Owners of SS 1926 CPD 437 at 440.
  180. Maytom v ‘Harry Escombe' 1920 AD 187 at 192.
  181. The Melanie (Owners) v The San Onofre (Owners) [1925] AC 246; The Tojo Maru [1974] AC 242 (HL).
  182. The Gas Float Whitton No 2 [1896] P 42 (CA) at 63 affirmed sub nomine Wells v Owners of the Gas Float Whitton No 2 [1897] AC 337 per Lord Herschel at 345.
  183. Constable v Gamble (1601) 5 Co Rep Pt V 106a, 1066 quoted in Thomas op cit at 157.
    "Flotsam is when a ship is sunk, or otherwise perished, and the goods float on the sea; jetsam is when the ship is in danger of being sunk and to lighten the ship the goods are cast into the sea, and afterwards notwithstanding the ship perish. Lagan (vel potius ligan) is when the goods which are so cast into the sea, and afterwards the ship perishes, and such goods cast are so heavy that they sink to the bottom, and the mariners, to the intent to have them again, tie them to a buoy or cork, or such other thing that will not sink, so that they may find them again, & dicitur lig a ligando; and none of these goods which are called flotsam, jetsam, or ligan, are called wreck so long as they remain in or upon the sea; but if any of them by the sea be put on the land, then they shall be said wreck."
  184. Thomas op cit at 160.
  185. The Westminster (1841) 1 W Rob 229.
  186. The Two Friends (1799) 1 C Rob 271; The Veritas [1901] P 304.
  187. The Mary Anne (1865) LR 1 A & E 8.
  188. Five Steel Barges (1890) 15 PD 142.
  189. See the discussion under subheading 2.5 "Bottomry and respondentia maritime liens".
  190. See the discussion under subheading 2.2 "Wages lien for both seamen and masters".
  191. The Kangaroo [1918] P 327; The Pretoria (1920) 5 Lloyd's Rep 112.
  192. Act 1894, s 544.
  193. Thomas "Life Salvage in Anglo American Law" 10 Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 79.
  194. Thomas Maritime Liens British Shipping Laws vol 14.
  195. Section 300 -- Salvage payable for life
    1. When services are rendered within the territorial waters of the Republic in saving life from any ship, or elsewhere in saving life from any South African ship, there shall be payable to the salvor by the owner of the ship and the owner of any wreck that may have been saved, a reasonable amount of salvage, and the salvor shall have a lien upon the ship or wreck for the amount of the salvage due to him.
    2. Salvage in respect of the preservation of life, when payable by the owner of a ship, shall be payable in priority to all other claims for salvage.
    3. When the ship or wreck is lost or the value thereof is insufficient, after payment of the actual expenses incurred, to pay the amount of salvage payable in respect of the preservation of life, the Minister may, in his discretion, awards to the salvor, out of moneys made available by Parliament for the purpose, such sum as he thinks fit, in whole or part satisfaction of any amount of salvage so left unpaid.
  196. Thomas op cit at 294.
  197. See the discussion which follows re maritime liens in respect of life salvage.
  198. (1)  "any claim for, arising out of or relationg to --
    1. 'any mortgage, hypothecation, right of retention, pledge or other charge on or of a ship, and any bottomry or respondentia bond;...'
  199. The Atlas (1827) 2 Hagg 48 at 53.
  200. [1926] P 217 at 226.
  201. Thomas op cit at 207 states that the last recorded decision relating to bottomry was the case of The St George (op cit at 222) in which Lord Merrivale observed in relation to bottomry that it was "a mode of raising money out of common use at the present day and unfamiliar in current practice".
  202. The Law of Maritime Liens (op cit at 29).
  203. (1804) 5 C Rob 218 at 222-3.
  204. The Atlas (op cit at 53); The Tobago (1804) 5 C Rob 218.
  205. Thompson v Royal Exchange Ass Co (1813) 1 M & SS 30 quoted in Thomas op cit at 211; The Emancipation (1840) 1 W Robb 124; Mackie, Dunn & Co v South British Insurance Co (1885) 3 SC 405.
  206. (1823) 1 Hag Adm 169 at 175.
  207. (1857) Swab 269 at 282 quoted at Thomas op cit at 211.
  208. Thomas op cit at 219.
  209. Ibid at 220.
  210. Ibid at 213.
  211. The Royal Arch (op cit at 269).
  212. The Eugenie (1873) LR 4 A & E 123 quoted at Thomas op cit at 213.
  213. Thomas op cit at 213.
  214. The Dowthorpe (1843) 2 W Rob 73.
  215. Thomas op cit at 224.
  216. "Should foreign maritime liens be recognised?" (1991) 108 SALJ 293.
  217. Ibid at 299-300.
  218. "South African Admiralty Jurisdiction" 1982 Acta Juridica 30 at 40.
  219. Section 55 of the United Kingdom Merchant Shipping Act which re-enacted ss 458 and 459 of the United Kingdom Merchant Shipping Act of 1854 as extended by s 9 of the Admiralty Court Act of 1861.
  220. Section 567 of the United Kingdom Merchant Shipping Act of 1894 which re-enacted s 455 of the United Kingdom Merchant Shipping Act of 1854 and provided that the receiver should, in respect of his fees and expenses, have the same rights and remedies as a salvor.
  221. Section 513 of the United Kingdom Merchant Shipping Act of 1854 provided that such damage should be a charge on the maritime res and would be recoverable in the same manner as salvage.
  222. The Law of Maritime Liens (1940).
  223. Op cit at 16.
  224. (1846) 2 W Rob 404.
  225. "Maritime Lien" (1888) LQR 381.
  226. (1889) 43 ChD 241.
  227. [1923] P 68.
  228. Op cit at 17.
  229. (1885) 10 PD 44 (CA); (1886) 11 App Cas 270.
  230. Op cit at 54.
  231. Op cit at 17 footnote 3.
  232. Op cit at 17.
  233. (1841) 1 W Rob 288.
  234. (1863) B & L 32.
  235. The Pacific (1864) B & L 243 and The Troubadour (1866) LR 1 A & E 302 both affirmed in The Two Ellens (1871) LR 3 A & E 345, and The Heinrich Björn (1885) 10 PD 44, (1886) 11 App Cases 270.
  236. Price op cit at 54-5.
  237. Section 55 which was a re-enactment of ss 458 and 459 of the 1854 United Kingdom Merchant Shipping Act as extended by s 9 of the 1861 Admiralty Act.
  238. The position under the general maritime law of  England (that there was no salvage claimable for saving life at sea) was remedied under English law by the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894.
  239. 1894, ss 521; 523-5; 567(1).
  240. 1894, ss 567(2) which re-enacted s 455 of the 1854 United Kingdom Merchant Shipping Act.
  241. Price op cit at 2.
  242. Section 513 which re-enacted s 446 of the 1854 United Kingdom Merchant Shipping Act.
  243. Thomas op cit at 20, The Merriel [1963] P 247 at 254.
  244. Sections 301-4.
  245. Section 302.
  246. Oriental Commercial and Shipping Co Ltd v MV Fidias (op cit); Transol Bunker BV v MV Andrico Unity and Others: Grecian Mar SRL v MV Andrico Unity and Others 1987 (3) SA 794 (C); Brady-Hamilton Stevedore Co and Others v MV Kalantiao (op cit), and Transol Bunker BV v MV Andrico Unity and Others: Grecian Mar SRL v MV Andrico Unity and Others 1989 (4) SA 325 (A).
  247. [1923] P 102.
  248. Bankers Trust International Ltd v Todd Shipyard Corporation: The Halcyon Isle [1980] 3 AllER 197.
  249. Transol Bunker BV v MV Andrico Unity, Grecian Mar SRL v MV Andrico Unity 1989 (4) SA 325 (A).
  250. See generally Staniland "Should foreign maritime liens be recognised?" (1991) 108 South African Law Journal 293; Staniland "The Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act and the Maritime Claim of a Saudi Arabian Necessaries Man" (1986) 103 South African Law Journal 350; Staniland "The Halcyon Isle revisited: a South African perspective" 1989 (2) Lloyd's Maritime and commercial Law Quarterly 174.
  251. Marsden "Two Points of Admiralty Law" (1886) LQR 357 referred to in Price Law of Maritime Liens (1940).
  252. Section 3(4)(a) of the Act/
  253. Section 11(4)(e).
  254. See generally the discussion in Thomas op cit at 237-9.
  255. The Parlement Belge (1880) 5 PD 197 at 218.
  256. Mansfield op cit at 392.
  257. "Should foreign maritime liens be recognised?" (1991) 108 SALJ 293 at 294.
  258. Op cit at 15.
  259. Price Maritime Liens (1940).
  260. Transol Bunker BV v MV Andrico Unity and Others: Grecian Mar SRL v MV Andrico Unity and Others 1987 (3) SA 794 (C); Brady-Hamilton Stevedore Co and Others v MV Kalantiao (op cit), and Transol Bunker BV v MV Andrico Unity and Others: Grecian Mar SRL v MV Andrico Unity and Others 1989 (4) SA 325 (A).
  261. Transol Bunker BV v MV Andrico Unity and Others: Grecian Mar SRL v MV Andrico Unity and Others 1987 (3) SA 794 (C) at 820G-H.