The defendant (Nigerian National Shipping Line Ltd​) owned and operated a fleet, including the River Rima. The plaintiff (Tiphook Container Rental Co Ltd​) was in the container rental business. The plaintiff entered into a leasing agreement with the defendant for the hiring of containers to the latter as required from time to time. On 9 March 1987, by a writ issued in the Admiralty Court, the plaintiff began an action in rem against the River Rima and arrested the vessel. The defendant contended that the plaintiff's writ should be set aside on the ground that the plaintiff's claim was not within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court.

By an order made on 3 April 1987, the Admiralty Court held that the plaintiff's claim was within the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court by virtue of s 20(2)(m) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (UK) (the 1981 Act) and dismissed the defendant's application to set aside the writ and arrest with costs. The defendant appealed. The Court of Appeal by an order made on 1 May 1987 allowed the appeal, set aside the writ and arrest. The plaintiff appealed to the House of Lords.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

The main question to be decided was whether, having regard to the terms of the leasing agreement, and the procedure followed by the parties under it, each of the series of claims relating to individual containers made by the plaintiff, was a 'claim in respect of goods or materials supplied to a ship for her operation or maintenance' within the meaning of s 20(2)(m) of the 1981 Act.

The source of most of the provisions relating to the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court that contained in the 1981 Act, including s 20(2), was to be found in the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to the Arrest of Seagoing Ships 1952 (the Arrest Convention 1952) which had been given effect in England by the Administration of Justice Act 1956 (UK) (the 1956 Act).

Section 20(2)(m) of the 1981 Act originated from s 1(1)(m) of the 1956 Act which in turn derived from art 1.1.k of the Arrest Convention 1952. The particular type of claim specified in art 1.1.k of the Convention derived from s 22(1)(a)(7) of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 (UK) (the 1925 Act). Since proceedings in rem in respect of a claim under s 22(1)(a)(7) of the 1925 Act could only be brought against the particular ship in respect of which the claim arose, it was an essential ingredient of such a claim that it should relate to necessaries supplied to a particular ship, the identity of which had either been specified in the contract of supply or had at least been notified to the supplier by the time when the necessaries came to be delivered under the contract. Therefore, it was to be inferred that specification of the identity of the particular ship to which necessaries were supplied was also an essential ingredient of a claim under art 1.1.k of the Arrest Convention 1952. This inference was reinforced by the terms of art 3 of the Arrest Convention 1952, which permitted the arrest on a maritime claim of either the particular ship in respect of which the claim arose or a sister ship. On the basis that specification of the identity of the particular ship to which goods or materials were supplied was an essential ingredient of a claim under art 1.1.k of the Convention, it must also have been intended to be an essential ingredient of a corresponding claim under s 20(2)(m) of the 1981 Act.

In this case, the leasing agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant contained no specification of the identity of the particular ship for which each container was required. Therefore, it was not an agreement which fell within art 1.1.k of the Arrest Convention 1952 and s 20(2)(m) of the 1981 Act. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim was not within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court.