| Case ID |
09783ce2-7be8-4e5f-8146-8cbb170f1358 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Appeal No.1678 of 2008 |
| Decision Date |
Jun 04, 2013 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal of Surridge and Beecheno, a law firm, which claimed a right of salvage for services rendered in an admiralty case. The court found that the vessel in question was already arrested before the law firm engaged and that their services did not constitute salvage under the legal definitions applicable. The court emphasized that mere preservation of a client's interests at a later stage does not qualify as salvage, and without a court declaration recognizing the law firm's role in salvaging or preserving the property, they could not claim a salvage right. The court ruled that the Solicitors Act, 1932, which was not in force, would not grant any entitlements to the law firm, and thus the appeal was deemed without merit. |
| Summary |
In the case of Surridge and Beecheno vs. M.T. Eastern Navigator, the Supreme Court of Pakistan dealt with an appeal regarding the entitlement of a law firm to a salvage right for services rendered during an admiralty suit. The core issue revolved around whether the law firm could be classified as a 'salvor' under the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980, and the Solicitors Act, 1932. The court highlighted that the vessel was already in custody prior to the law firm's involvement, negating the potential for a salvage claim. The ruling underscored the importance of having a court declaration to substantiate claims of salvage rights, and consequently, the appeal was dismissed. This case emphasizes the legal principles governing maritime law and the specific conditions required for establishing a salvage right, making it a significant reference for future admiralty cases. Keywords: Admiralty Law, Salvage Rights, Maritime Jurisdiction, Legal Precedent, Pakistan Law. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Yukong Limited,
CIT Group/Capital Equipment Financing Inc.
|
| Judges |
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA,
EJAZ AFZAL KHAN,
IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY
|
| Lawyers |
M. Shaiq Usmani,
Qamar-ul-Islam Abbas
|
| Petitioners |
Surridge and Beecheno
|
| Respondents |
Nemo,
M.T. EASTERN NAVIGATOR,
Qamar-ul-Islam Abbas
|
| Citations |
2013 SLD 1658,
2013 SCMR 1533
|
| Other Citations |
Kuttikrishna Memon v. Cochin Mercantiles Ltd. (1962) (32) Company Cases 378,
Greer v. Young (1883) 24 Chapter D. 545
|
| Laws Involved |
Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980,
Solicitors Act, 1932
|
| Sections |
3,
69
|