Maxwell Shipping Company (Pvte) Ltd et Al v Motor Vessel “Tamasinga” and the Beneficial Owners of the Said Ship

• Jurisdiction: Barbados
• Judge: Williams, D.A.
• Judgment Date: 01 February 1983
• Neutral Citation: BB 1983 HC 10
• Docket Number: No. 821 of 1981
• Date: 01 February 1983
• Court: High Court (Barbados)

High Court. (Civil Jurisdiction).

Williams, J.

No. 821 of 1981

Maxwell Shipping Co. (Pvte) Ltd. et al

and

Motor Vessel “Tamasinga” and the Beneficial Owners of the Said Ship

Appearances:

Mr. V.O. Smith of Messrs. Smith & Smith for the first and second plaintiffs.

Miss E. Kentish for the defendants.

Practice and procedure - Costs — Security for costs

Williams, D.A.

1 In this summons the defendants seek an order against the first and second plaintiffs for security for costs on the round that they are not ordinarily resident, and have no assets, within the jurisdiction. They also seek an order for a stay of proceedings until security is given.

2 Under rule 1 of Order 23 the court may order security to be given if, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the court thinks it just to do so. Security is not to ordered as of course, but in the discretion of the court.

3 In this case the writ was issued on the 27th of October, 1981. On the same day affidavits were filed in support of an application for the issue of a warrant to arrest the ship. One of the affidavits was sworn by the second plaintiff as an agent of the first plaintiff. The ship was arrested. On the 28th of October, 1981 appearance as entered for the defendants and an affidavit was filed on behalf of the defendants stating that it was the intention of the defendants to defend the action and in support of an application for the release of the ship upon the guarantee of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce in the sum of $250 000. On the 5th of November, 1981 the ship was released under a bail bond for $350 000 given by the bank.

4 On the 15th of December, 1981, on the defendants' application, an order was made for the action to be heard with pleadings, such pleadings to be filed and served in accordance with rule 56 of the Admiralty Rules 1883. On the 12th of January, 1982 the third plaintiff filed and served the petition setting out his claim. Later in January the other plaintiffs, excluding the first, filed and served a petition setting out their claims. The first plaintiff has not up to the present filed or served any pleading pursuant to the order of the 15th of December, 1981.

5 Answers and counterclaims were later filed and served by the defendants in respect of the claims of the plaintiffs (other than the first plaintiff) and those plaintiffs duly filed and served replies and answers to the counterclaims.

6 On the...