The claimant Whitney Jacobs worked with Admiralty Transport Co Ltd for 16 years as a seafarer and chief engineer. The claimant was dismissed and sought and obtained a judgment in his favour for wrongful termination from the Labour Department. 

The defendant applied to the High Court to have the judgment set aside on the basis that the Labour Department had no jurisdiction as the Shipping Act applies to this dispute so as to invoke the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court.

At all material times the claimant was employed as an engineer with the defendant and was not employed pursuant to any crew agreement as contemplated by s 77 of the Shipping Act 2004 of the Laws of St Vincent and the Grenadines. The defendant submitted to the jurisdiction of the Labour Commissioner. However, the defendant submits that the claimant's claim is essentially an Admiralty claim and therefore falls under the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court and to the provisions of the Shipping Act No 11 of 2004 especially s 74(f) and the CPR 2000 (Civil Procedure Rules). Section 74(f) of the Shipping Act reads as follows:-

As from the 11th day of June 1997 the provisions of Article 1-16 of the International Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages 1993 as set out in the schedule shall form an integral part of this Act and have the force of Law as such, but without prejudice to any transaction enacted prior to that date to which the provisions of Article 1-11 of the Brussels Convention 1926 applied.

The defendant argues that art 4 of the MLM Convention 1993 states that claims for wages and other sums due to the master, officers, and other members of the vessel's complement in respect of their employment on the vessel are maritime liens which are secured on the vessel itself. Claims for crew wages must be brought in admiralty proceedings in the Admiralty Court against the ship and its owners and no other court has jurisdiction in rem to entertain such proceedings. If another court without jurisdiction were to entertain and adjudicate on such a claim the ruling would be a legal nullity.

Held: Application of the defendant set aside; defence out of time dismissed. 

The Shipping Act has no relevance in this matter. There is no evidence that there was ever any crew agreement signed by the parties under s 77 of the Shipping Act. The Shipping Act was never a factor in the employment relationship of the claimant and the defendant. It has only surfaced as an after-thought even though it has no relevance. It is a last-ditch effort by the defendant to circumvent the wrath of the Court having failed to file a defence for over one year since it was due.

The defendant, Admiralty Transport Co Ltd, owned two vessels, the Admiral I and Admiral II. This company through these two vessels was involved in the transportation of passengers and goods, and the claimant was employed by the company. Therefore, pursuant to the Wages Regulations (Industrial Workers) Order 2003 and specifically s 4(e) of that Order, the hearing officer was cloaked with jurisdiction to adjudicate in the dispute between the claimant and the defendant.