SEAFARERS
Cama v CKP Fishing Company Ltd [2004] FJHC 349; HBC0205D.2003S (24 February 2004)
SEAFARERS- Action for negligence for injuries suffered on board vessel limited by Limitation Act
Plaintiff suffered severe frost bite injuries to fingers as a result of working in a freezer on a vessel where defendant supplied no safety gear such as insulated gloves. Plaintiff first filed a notice under the Workers Compensation Act, but had no progress in 3 years. The plaintiff filed a motion to seek leave of the court to extend the 3 year time limitation under the Limitation Act in order to sue vessel owner in negligence.
DECISION: motion dismissed
HELD: The plaintiff’s action could not fit into a situation where the court could exercise its jurisdiction to extend time, although this was through no fault of the plaintiff
SEAFARERS- Action in rem- In rem action for wages of crew- Security for release of vessel
The vessel was sailed from Honiara to Suva for repairs. 10 months after her arrival the Master and crew issued an action in rem claiming unpaid wages and allowances. The owner of vessel issued a motion seeking discharge of the arrest warrant and alleging that actions of crew were illegal and in breach of Shipping Act.
DECISION: The action by the crew was proper and the court had jurisdiction; there was an order to release the vessel upon payment of a F$25,000 bond.
HELD: The Court determined that the Supreme Court Rules and British Admiralty precedent supported an action in rem for the wages of the crew on that vessel. As to the release of the vessel, the Court found that the res must be released upon receiving security for the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff is entitled to demand such an amount as security as would cover his reasonably best arguable case, and once an application for release of a vessel is made, it is incumbent on the plaintiff to quantify that amount.
SEAFARERS- Employers may assert the rights of the crew when seeking declaratory judgement of salary taxes
The Plaintiffs are time charterers of an ocean-going petroleum tanker. They filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief alleging that the defendants were attempting to assess and levy FSM gross revenue taxes upon them, and wage and salary taxes upon the vessel’s crew. The plaintiffs had received notice from the defendants that they were liable for gross revenue and wage and salary taxes upon the vessel’s crew. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss for contending that the complaint attempts to assert the rights of persons, the crew, who are not parties.
DECISION: Motion denied
HELD: The plaintiffs are asserting their own rights. If the crew is subject to FSM wage and salary taxes, the plaintiff would be liable to the obligations and liabilities of an employer, and failure to perform those obligations would expose the plaintiffs to civil and criminal penalties.
Metutera v Kiribati Shipping Services Ltd [2007] KICA 16; Civil Appeal 07 of 2007 (30 July 2007)
SEAFARERS- contract of employment- interpretation- right to be heard
before dismissal by the Board The seafarer appealed a decision whereby his
dismissal by the Board was upheld by the Court. The contract of employment
stipulated that employee had a right to be heard before a suspension.
DECISION: Appeal allowed.
HELD: The Board reached its decision to dismiss the Appellant without giving any
notice that dismissal was being considered and without hearing the appellant in
person or without giving him the opportunity to make submissions in writing on
whether he should be dismissed. The contract provided that the employee would
be given the right to be heard if a suspension was contemplated and the Appeal
Court held that such a term would be implied where a dismissal was being
considered by the Board.
Momoivalu v Nauru Air & Shipping Agency [1992] FJHC 5; Hbc0819j.85s (13 May 1992)
SEAFARERS- MARITIME TORTS- Negligence- Duty of care owed by the vessel owner to crew members on a vessel does not include preventing unprovoked attack on one crew member by another.
,p>The plaintiff claimed damages suffered as a result of an assault committed on him by a fellow employee of the defendant agency. The assault occurred on a vessel where the plaintiff and assailant were employed as crew members. The plaintiff claimed that the assault was committed by the agent or servant of the defendant in the course of his employment. He also claimed that the owners of the ship neglected to provide adequate security for the welfare of the plaintiff on the ship.
DECISION: Claims dismissed.
HELD: The unprovoked assault on the plaintiff by a fellow crew member was not committed in the course of the assailant’s employment. As to a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff to provide adequate security and to ensure the safety of the plaintiff the court found that it was not a case of faulty equipment or dangerous work; the assailant was not a stranger allowed on board through a lack of security measures; and there was no evidence of hostility between ethnic groups among the crew members, nor was not suggested that the assailant had a known propensity for violence and unprovoked assault.
Robert v Sonis [2002] FMCSC 7; 11 FSM Intrm. 031 (Chk. S. Ct. Tr. 2002) (19 June 2002
SEAFARERS- claims for seaman’s wages are maritime cases. The Plaintiffs are seamen and port operators in the employ of the Chuuk State Department of Transportation. The Plaintiffs claimed hazardous pay from the Defendant. The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss contending that the cases sounded in admiralty and maritime law, and therefore were in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the Federated of Micronesia.
DECISION: motion allowed
HELD: Cases involving claims for wages by seamen are maritime cases. Article IX 6(a) provides that the Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction in admiralty and maritime cases.