This case involved two motions in an action in rem for the short delivery of cargo. The cargo in question was 65,913 bags of sugar shipped from Dunkirk to Dar-es-Salaam on the Berny in May and June 1973. The plaintiff cargo owners claimed GBP 3,409 from the defendant shipowners. The plaintiffs initiated two actions: the first action was in rem against the Berny as the ship connected to the claim, and also in personam against the shipowners. The second action was against a large number (originally 18) of sister ships of the Berny.

The Hague Rules applied to the bill of lading, and therefore the time limit under art 3.6 applied to any claims for loss or damage. However, the parties agreed to three successive extensions at various times.

The writs in both actions were renewed upon application to the Registrar while the plaintiffs were waiting for one of the named ships to be reported by Lloyd’s Intelligent Services (LIS) as being within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.

When the Valny, one of the named sister ships, was reported by LIS to be located at Queen Elizabeth II Dock, the plaintiff's solicitors contacted the defendant's solicitors requesting a written undertaking to prevent arrest of the vessel. The defendant's solicitors agreed to provide security, accept service of proceedings, and enter an appearance.

After the defendants refused to admit liability, the plaintiffs served the renewed Berny writ on the defendants. The defendants entered a conditional appearance and applied for a motion to set aside the writ. They argued that when the action was initiated, the cargo owners had already invoked the Court's jurisdiction in rem by bringing a sister ship action. Therefore, the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the Berny action.

In response, the plaintiffs applied to the Registrar to renew the sister ship writ for a second time, aiming to preserve the right to serve the sister ship writ in case the defendants' motion succeeded. The Registrar granted the renewal of the writ for a further 12 months. Additionally, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting an order that the defendants instruct solicitors to accept on their behalf service of the writ on the action and enter an unconditional appearance.

Held: Motions dismissed.

Prior to the enactment of the Administration of Justice Act 1956 (the Act), which was passed to give effect to the Arrest Convention 1952, the admiralty jurisdiction for proceedings in rem against a ship was limited to the ship associated with the cause of action, as established in The Beldis [1936] P 51. However, s 4 of the Act expanded the admiralty jurisdiction by allowing actions in rem in relation to claims within paras (d)-(r) of s 1(1) to be brought against either the ship in connection to the claim or a sister ship.

The Court acknowledged that although s 3(4) of the Act only extended the admiralty jurisdiction through proceedings in rem to the ship connected to the claim or a sister ship, a practice had developed where a plaintiff, having the option to proceed against multiple ships owned by the same person under the subsection, would initiate concurrent proceedings by issuing one or more writs against all the eligible ships. The Court examined the validity of this practice and consequently had to determine the meaning of the phrase 'the jurisdiction may be invoked by an action in rem' in s 3(4) of the Act. Specifically, the Court had to ascertain whether its admiralty jurisdiction was invoked solely by the issuance of the writ, or only when the writ was served, or was deemed to be served.

The Court held that while it was not bound by the decision in The Banco [1971] P 137, which upheld the practice of issuing a writ in rem that names both the 'offending' ship and all other ships beneficially owned by the same owner, but subsequently arresting only the most suitable one, it agreed with the rationale of that case. Consequently, the Court held that the plaintiff cargo owners were entitled to initiate proceedings in rem against more than one of the defendant's ships, as long as they served proceedings and arrested only one of those ships. They could achieve this outcome by simultaneously issuing one writ against the ship associated with the claim and another writ against multiple sister ships of that vessel.