Jeyang International Company Ltd v Owners of the Motor Vessel Kao Ya No 1 and Kao Ya No. 137 [2002] FJHC 31; HBG0009J.2001 (30 September 2002)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
(AT SUVA)
ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. HBG 9 OF 2001

Between:

JEYANG INTERNATIONAL CO. LIMITED
Plaintiff

and

THE OWNERS OF MOTOR VESSELS
KAO YA NO. 1 & KAO YA NO. 137
Defendants

V. Kapadia for the Plaintiff
Fa for the Land Bank of Taiwan, Intervening
K. R. Bulewa for Yan Chi Chen, Intervening
K. Keteca for the Attorney-General
No appearance by the Defendants

JUDGMENT

This Judgment should be read in connection with my Decision in the same matter published on 12 July 2002.

The sole question now is whether the Plaintiff has proved its claim.

It should be noted that although the Writ describes the Defendants only as the owner of Kao Ya No. 1 and Kao Ya No. 137 the Plaintiff’s claim which amounts to the amended sum of US$94,669 includes a claim for unpaid crews wages in respect of a third vessel namely Kao Ya No. 101 also owned by the Defendants. There is no objection to such joinder (see Supreme Court Act 1981 (Eng) Section 21 as applied by the High Court Act (Cap 13) Section 18).

The Plaintiff principally relied on the evidence of Dong Hyun Choi a director and its General Manager. Mr. Choi filed a comprehensive affidavit on 17 September 2002 exhibiting lists of the crew of the three vessels which the Plaintiff represented together with details such as names, dates of birth, embarkation dates, nationality and amounts of wages owed. The smallest sum owed was US$2055, the largest US$5057. Most were owed under US$2500. Mr. Choi also referred to three affidavits sworn by his local agent in Fiji, Mr. Kim Sung Soo. Both Mr. Choi and Mr. Soo gave oral evidence and were questioned. I have no reason to doubt anything that I was told by these two gentlemen.

Mr. Fa, who represented a mortgagee bank suggested that the evidence was unsatisfactory. He was particularly concerned about a letter (oddly enough from the Law Reform Commission) dated 22 November 2001 which appears to show that altogether F$54,291 was paid to the masters and crew of Kao Ya No. 1 and Kao Yar 137. It appears that the amounts paid represented the proceeds of sale of fish found upon the vessels after their arrest. A list of 48 crew who were paid was attached to the letter.

$54,291 divided by 48 results in an average payment of $1131. This represents less that US$500 per man. I think it is safe to assume that the masters received rather more than the crew. The Chinese, Ni Vanuatu and Japanese crew are not part of the Plaintiff’s claim. Mr. Fa may well be right that some members of the crew represented by the Plaintiff may be slightly over-paid if the full amount claimed by the Plaintiff is awarded but I am satisfied that the individual amounts of over-payment would be small and that no useful purpose would be served by attempting to achieve greater precision. It will be remembered that the Plaintiff is representing quite lowly paid fishermen. The Land Bank of Taiwan, on the other hand, is seeking to recover millions.

I am satisfied that in all the circumstances the Plaintiff’s claim has been adequately proved. I according award the Plaintiff the sum of US$94,669 as claimed.

The amount of F$78,700 claimed as the costs of arresting and detaining Kao Ya 1 and Kao Ya 137 in Fiji is in my view too high. Counsel agreed to discuss this aspect of the Plaintiff’s claim with the Deputy Admiralty Marshal in the hope that agreement can be reached.

M.D. Scott
Judge

30 September 2002