This was a claim in rem against the MV Tenacity 1 for unpaid wages arising from the claimant's employment as a seafarer. The matter also involved a claim in rem for disbursements incurred by the claimant for expenses incidental to the operation and maintenance of the MV Tenacity 1. The vessel was registered in Kingstown, St Vincent and the Grenadines, in 2016. It was owned by SS Marine Transporter, a company registered in Trinidad and Tobago.

The claimant alleged that he was employed by the vessel as operations manager in August 2016, and it was agreed that he would be paid USD 2,000 (XCD 5,377.80) monthly when the ship was not in operation, and USD 2,500 (XCD 6,722.25) when the ship was operational. The claimant maintained that he was actively involved in the events leading up to the purchase of the vessel in Canada, and was onboard for the journey from Canada to the Caribbean in August 2016. The claimant claimed that the vessel did not pay his wages of USD 17,500 (XCD 47,055.75) up to July 2017 and continuing. The claimant further claimed USD 17,956.23 for disbursements paid on behalf of the vessel.

The defendants contended that the claimant was never employed by the owners of the vessel, and rejected all claims for disbursements and wages. The defendants counterclaimed for XCD 54,338 expended in retrieving the vessel from Tortola because of its detention, while the claimant was on a frolic of his own. The defendants also counterclaimed for loss of use of the vessel while it was arrested in Tortola in the sum of USD 292,322; loss of use while the vessel was arrested in St Vincent in the sum of USD 150,000; and crew wages while the vessel was detained.

Held: Judgment for the claimant. The defendants are to pay the claimant the following sums at the rate of conversion of USD 1 to XCD 2.6889: a) As salary: USD 5,000 = XCD 13,444.50; b) As disbursements: USD 12,630 = XCD 33,960.81.

There is uncontroverted evidence that the claimant worked for the defendants. The claimant's period of engagement extended past the initial period of advising the defendants on the type of vessel to purchase, and the assistance rendered to bring it to the Caribbean from Canada, and included his presence on the vessel as it started its voyages within the region. The claimant was an employee of the defendants, responsible to ensure that the new crew learnt the running of the ship, and would have been able to undertake subsequent voyages without him.

In relation to the question of reimbursement for disbursements, the law is set out in the Admiralty and Prize Jurisdiction Act (Cap 16 of the Revised Laws of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines), which makes it clear that there are only a specific group of individuals who can claim for disbursements. By s 3(1)(n) of the Act, the admiralty jurisdiction of the Court is empowered to hear questions and claims in relation to 'any claim by a master, shipper, charterer or agent in respect of disbursements made on account of a ship'. This provision is also contained in Pt 70 of the CPR 2000, which dictates the manner in which admiralty claims are to be commenced before the Court.

The claimant had the authority to act on behalf of the owner and thereby the vessel. The Court accepted the fuel costs paid by the claimant, and the hotel accommodation of the ship inspector that came from Trinidad to survey the ship so that it would be released from detention. The other disbursement claims were denied.