Matcam Marine Ltd v Michael Matalon

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Judge: SYKES J
• Judgment Date: 06 October 2011
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2011] 10 JJC 0601
• Date: 06 October 2011
• Court: Supreme Court (Jamaica)
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO. A 0002/2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA

CIVIL DIVISION

CLAIM NO. A 0002/2011

BETWEEN

MATCAM MARINE LIMITED

CLAIMANT

AND

MICHAEL MATALON

DEFENDANT

THE REGISTERED OWNER OF THE ORION WARRIOR (FORMERLY MATCAM 1)

IN CHAMBERS

Denise Kitson, Mark Reynolds and Kashina Moore instructed by Grant Stewart Phillips and Co for the claimant

Gordon Robinson and Jerome Spencer instructed by Patterson Mair Hamilton for the defendant

ARREST OF VESSEL – ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT – WHETHER ARREST WITHIN JURISDICTION OF COURT – APPLICATION FOR RELEASE OF VESSEL - SECURITY FOR COSTS

SYKES J

1 Mr. Michael Matalon, the defendant, has made two applications. The first is to have the vessel Orion Warrior released from arrest. The second is to have security for costs from Matcam Marine Limited, the claimant (“Matcam”). The first was dismissed; the second was granted. These are the reasons for the decisions.

The Background

2 Matcam in a company registered in the Turks and Caicos Islands. Matcam is the combination of the names Matalon and Campbell. Mr. Matalon and Mr. Norman Campbell are shareholders in Matcam. The company was formed as the vehicle by which both men and a third shareholder, Mr. Robert D' Arceuil, would operate the vessel, Orion Warrior.

3 The vessel was a burnt out wreck that was acquired by Mr. Matalon. He began to refurbish the vessel but the cost of doing so led him to consider getting another investor. The other investor was Mr. Campbell. The plan was that the vessel, a tug, would be operated providing tug boat services in the Caribbean region and beyond.

4 There is no doubt that significant sums were spent on the vessel. There is a dispute over who spent how much and at what time. Mr. Matalon claims that Mr. Campbell did not keep his end of the bargain and felt that Mr. Campbell had not contributed sufficient capital in keeping with the agreement they made. On the other hand, Mr. Campbell is contending that Mr. Matalon did not spend as much money as Mr. Campbell did.

5 Before the relationship between the two men deteriorated, the vessel was registered in the name of Matcam. It is the main asset of the company. Other than an allegation that Matcam holds US $32,000.00 in an account at a Jamaican financial institution, there is no other asset said to be owned by Matcam. More will be said about this money when dealing the security for costs application.

6 According to Mr. Matalon he was granted a power of attorney which he claims, among other things, empowered him to transfer the vessel to his name alone should it be the case that Mr. Campbell failed to invest the appropriate sums of money in the enterprise. Mr. Campbell says otherwise. Mr. Campbell says that the power of attorney was given to Mr. Matalon to enable him to act on behalf of the company in relation to the company and it would be ludicrous for the company to give Mr. Matalon the power of unilateral transfer to himself of the main asset of the company.

7 Mr. Matalon, acted, he claims, under the power of attorney and transferred the vessel to his name alone. This precipitated an application by Mr. Campbell to the Supreme Court for a warrant to arrest the ship. The ship is now under arrest under this warrant. This is the context of the two applications mentioned in paragraph one. They will be dealt with separately. However before doing so it is important to settle this issue of the Admiralty jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Jamaica.

Admiralty jurisdiction

8 Strange as it may sound, Mr. Robinson raised doubts about the applicability of some provisions of the Administration of Justice Act 1956 (UK) to Jamaica despite two Supreme Court decisions which affirmed that the legislation does apply to Jamaica (see Citadelle Line S.A. v The Owners of Motor Vessel “Texana” (1996) 16 JLR 1; DYC Fishing Ltd v The Owners of MV Devin and MV Brice Claim No. 2010 A 00002 (delivered October 8, 2010)). Neither decision was challenged in the Court of Appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal in Harpa Shipping & Chartering GMBH v Europe West-Indie Lijnen B.V. SCCA No 96/2008 (delivered March 27, 2009) dealt with the issue but to be fair to Mr. Robinson's submission, the court assumed the legislation applied without tracing the route to that conclusion. To that extent there does not seem to be a definitive decision from the Court of Appeal of Jamaica or the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the issue.

9 To put this matter to rest once and for all, this court attempts to set out, clearly, the steps to the conclusion that sections 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 of the 1956 UK Act apply to Jamaica today. In 1880, the Judicature (Supreme Court) Act was passed. In section 4, the legislation combined all the existing courts in Jamaica in a single court known as the Supreme Court. Of the courts listed in section 4, there is no mention of a Court of Admiralty. This does not necessarily mean that no Admiralty jurisdiction existed in Jamaica. Section 18 of the Judicature (Supreme Court) Act makes reference to the appointment of a bailiff who was empowered to act under the court's Admiralty jurisdiction as well as under an Act styled The Colonial Courts of Vice-Admiralty Act of 1890. This Act, based on the research to date, is actually The Colonial Courts Admiralty Act of 1890. There is no reference to word “Vice” in the title.

10 Section 18 actually says the bailiff's “powers and duties shall be limited to executing the process of the said Court [Supreme Court] in its Admiralty Jurisdiction and to doing the various things which are by the United Kingdom Act styled The Colonial Courts of Vice-Admiralty Act, 1890 (53 and 54 Vic., Chap 27) or by any rules made under the provisions of the said Act are required to be done by the Bailiff of the said Court.” This would suggest that there was an Admiralty jurisdiction before the 1890 Act was passed and that the bailiff was expressly authorised to act under the Admiralty jurisdiction before the 1890 Act as well as under the 1890 Act.

11 The view that an Admiralty jurisdiction existed in Jamaica before 1890 is supported by the historical record. From the material available, it is fair to say that Vice Admiralty Courts were established wherever British colonists settled. Initially, they dealt with piracy and disputes between merchants and seamen. It appears that Vice Admiralty Courts existed in Jamaica from at least the second half of the seventeenth century but certainly by the eighteenth century (Agnes Butterfield, Notes on Records of The Supreme Court, The Court of...