The plaintiff claimed damages due to an accident that occurred during the course of his work as a seafarer, while he was employed by the defendants. The plaintiff claimed that the accident and resulting injury were due to the negligence and breach of duty of the defendants and/or their employees and/or representatives.

The issue of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court sitting as a Maritime Court was raised by the defendants. The defendants argued that the plaintiff's claim did not fall within the claims for which the Maritime Court has jurisdiction, as listed in s 1(1)(f) of the Administration of Justice Act 1956 (UK), applicable in Cyprus, based on s 29(2) of the Law on Courts 1960 (Law 14/1960). The defendants contend that in order for such a claim to be a maritime claim under this section, it must relate to a claim for bodily injury resulting from negligence in the navigation or management of a ship or as a consequence of any defect in the ship or its components or equipment.

Held: The plaintiff's claim does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Maritime Court. The case is transferred to the District Court.

The Supreme Court acquires jurisdiction to hear cases as a Maritime Court in the first instance based on s 19(a) of the Law on Courts 14/1960. According to s 29(2)(a) of the same Law, the applicable law is English law as it was at the time of the independence of the Republic of Cyprus. It is common ground that, in the present case, what is at stake is whether the case is covered by s 1(1)(f) of the Administration of Justice Act 1956 (UK), which provides as follows:

(1) The Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court shall be as follows, that is to say, jurisdiction to hear and determine any of the following questions or claims - ...

(f) any claim for loss of life or personal injury sustained in consequence of any defect in a ship or in her apparel or equipment, or of the wrongful act, neglect or default of the owners, charterers or persons in possession or control of a ship or of the master or crew thereof or of any other person for whose wrongful acts, neglects or defaults the owners, charterers or persons in possession or control of a ship are responsible, being an act, neglect or default in the navigation or management of the ship, in the loading, carriage or discharge of goods on, in or from the ship or in the embarkation, carriage or disembarkation of persons on, in or from the ship;

It follows from the above section that the claim must meet the three conditions set, namely:

(1) The claim must be for loss of life or personal injury;

(2) The loss of life or personal injury must be the result of either (a) any defect in the ship or its equipment or (b) a tort or omission of the ship's owners, charterers or persons in possession or control of the ship ship;

(3) The tort, negligence or omission must be related to the navigation, or management of the ship during loading, transport of goods from or to it, or the embarkation, transport or disembarkation of persons on or from the ship.

The question of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as a Maritime Court and its substantive jurisdiction to adjudicate is examined on the basis of the allegations made in the petition: see Sevegep Ltd v United Sea Transport (1989) 1 AAD 729. As a rule, the facts which constitute the claim of the plaintiff constitute the basis for the determination of jurisdiction.

The plaintiff was appointed at the Port of Limassol as a pilot, and undertook to crew the vessels of the Cyprus Port Authority and/or to assist and/or take part in the voyage, mooring, departure, towing of vessels and maintenance of vessels. The plaintiff was on the tug Aspelia, which offered services to ships approaching the port, ie it assisted in the handling, unloading, and towing operations of ships. The task that the two pilots, including the plaintiff, had to perform on 10 January 2017, was to loosen a rope from the spool onto the deck. As the plaintiff carried out his instructions, the Commander, suddenly and without any warning, pulled or twisted the rope while he was loosening it and the winding mechanism which loosened the rope abruptly pulled the plaintiff back and seriously injured his right arm.

In order for the case to fall within the substantive jurisdiction of the Maritime Court, the alleged negligence or infringement must be related to the navigation or management of the ship during loading, carriage of goods from or to it or the embarkation, transport or disembarkation of people on or off the ship. In Panagidis v The Ship Atalante (2010) 1 AAD 969, referred to by the defendants, the Court stated the following:

As has been decided in the case of Fili v Yacht 'Nirvana' (1988) 1 CLR 651, the act, negligence or omission that led to the accident, must be connected and must have occurred 'in the navigation or management of the ship'. In the present case, the Atalanti was not at sea, so there is no question that the accident occurred while navigating. Whether it was done during management is a matter of fact which must be decided according to the circumstances of the case, as the authorities do not derive any precise legal definition (Ferro [1893] P 38; the Glenochil [1896] P 10; Gosse Millerd Ltd v Canadian Government Merchant Marine Ltd [1929] AC 223). The act, negligence or omission must be of direct concern to the ship itself. And, as mentioned in Robert Grime's book, Shipping Law 2nd ed (1991), discussing the essentially similar s 20(2)(f) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (UK), 'Personal injury claims are exhaustively described as to make it clear that the cause of the injury must be the regular operation of the ship.'

Steedman v Scofield [1992] 2 Lloyd's Rep 163 analysed the concept of navigation as follows:

Navigation is the nautical art or science of conducting a ship from one place to another. The navigator must be able (1) to determine the ship's position and (2) to determine the future course or courses to be steered to reach the intended destination. The word 'navigation' is also used to describe the action of navigating or ordered movement of ships on water. Hence 'navigable waters' means waters on which ships can be navigated. To my mind the phrase 'used in navigation' conveys the concept of transporting persons or property by water to an intended destination. A fishing vessel may go to sea and return to the harbour from which she sailed, but that vessel will nevertheless be navigated to her fishing grounds and back again. 'Navigation' is not synonymous with movement on water. Navigation is planned or ordered movement from one place to another.

In this case, the accident did not occur while navigating the vessel. It was a tug, which, according to the admissible facts, 'offered services to the ships approaching the Port, that is, it assisted in the handling, unloading and towing operations of the ships'. The accident took place, according to the report, when the ship was at the entrance (mouth) of the port and the tug was to offer its services. According to the facts, this is also not an accident that occurred during the management of the vessel ie 'during the loading, transport of goods from or to it, or the embarkation, transport or disembarkation of persons on or from the ship'.

The plaintiff's action does not fall within the provisions of s 1(1)(f) of the Administration of Justice Act 1956 (UK), and therefore does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Maritime Court. The lawsuit is terminated before this Court and is referred to the Limassol District Court, which is the competent Court.