| Admiralty law |
|---|
 |
| History |
| Features |
| Contract of carriage/Charterparty |
| Parties |
| Judiciaries |
| International conventions |
| International organizations |
Admiralty courts, also known as maritime courts, are courts exercising jurisdiction over all maritime contracts, torts, injuries, and offenses.
The Scottish court's earliest records, held in West Register House in Edinburgh, indicate that sittings were a regular event by at least 1556. Judges were styled "Judge Admiral" and received appointment at the hands of the Scottish High Admiral [a] to hear matters affecting the Royal Scots Navy as well as mercantile, privateering and prize money disputes. From 1702 the judge of the court was also authorised to appoint deputies to hear lesser matters or to deputise during his absence. [1]
The Scottish court's workload was small until the mid-eighteenth century, with judges hearing no more than four matters in each sitting. After the 1750s the volume of cases rose until by 1790 it was necessary to maintain a daily log of decisions. [1] The growth in caseload was related to increasing disputes regarding breaches of charter, including ship's masters seeking compensation for unpaid freight and merchants suing for damage to goods or unexpected port fees. Cases reflected Scotland's principal marine industries including the transshipment of sugar and tobacco and the export of dried fish, coal and grains. A smaller number of cases related to smuggling, principally brandy, and to salvage rights for ships wrecked on Scottish shores. [2] The court ceased operation in 1832 and its functions were subsumed into the Court of Session, Scotland's supreme court for civil disputes. [1] [3]
The sole survivor of the independent courts of admiralty is the Court of Admiralty for the Cinque Ports, which is presided over by the early-merged role of Judge Official and Commissary. This office is normally held by a High Court Judge who holds the appointment of Admiralty Judge. The jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty of the Cinque Ports extends in an area with boundaries running from the Naze Tower, Essex along the shore to Brightlingsea, then to Shoe Beacon (or Shore Beacon), [4] (to the east of Shoeburyness, Essex [5] ), across the mouth of the Thames Estuary to Shellness, Kent, and around the coast to Redcliffe, near Seaford, Sussex. [6] It covers all the sea from Seaford to a point five miles off Cape Grisnez on the coast of France, and the Galloper Sands off the coast of Essex. [7] The last full sitting was in 1914. According to general civilian practice, the registrar can (and here does) act as deputy to the judge. Unless the judge finds a conflict of interest in the registrar's work their main task is to co-invest each successive Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports. Appeal from the court's decisions lies to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. [7]
| In office | Name | Qualifications |
|---|---|---|
| 1791–1809 | French Laurence | Doctor of Civil Law |
| 1809–1855 | Sir Joseph Phillimore | — |
| 1855–1875 | Rt Hon Sir Robert Phillimore | Bachelor of Arts, Doctor of Civil Law, Queen's Counsel, Privy Councillor, Barrister-at-Law |
| 1914–1936 | Rt Hon Sir Frederick Pollock | Barrister-at-Law, Fellow of the British Academy, Queen's Counsel, Privy Councillor |
| 1936–1961 | R. E. Knocker | Order of the British Empire |
| 1961–1967 | N. L. C. Macaskie | Queen's Counsel |
| 1967–1979 | Sir Henry Barnard | Barrister-at-Law, Queen's Counsel |
| 1979–1996 | Lieutenant-Commander Gerald Darling | MA (Oxon), Deputy Lieutenant, Barrister-at-Law, Queen's Counsel |
| 1996–present | Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony | — |
Since Elizabethan times, the symbol of authority for a British admiralty court has been a silver oar, placed before the judge when the court is in session. In this respect the silver oar is the equivalent of a ceremonial mace, representing the authority of the Crown and the Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom. [8] An antique silver oar is still placed before the bench when the High Court sits in London on matters relating to its admiralty court functions; in past times it was borne by the marshal in procession, not only in court but on occasions of arrest of persons or vessels, and also on the way to Execution Dock for the last journey of those convicted of piracy. The date of the London oar is uncertain: it is depicted on the tomb of David Lewis, Judge of the High Court of Admiralty from 1559 until 1584, there is some evidence that it may date from the beginnings of the court in the fourteenth century, though one of several assay marks suggests that it was remade three centuries later (based on the earlier pattern). [9] Local courts and vice-admiralty courts had their own silver oars; early examples survive from colonial courts in Bermuda (1701), Boston (1725), New York City (c. 1725), Colombo (1801), Cape of Good Hope (1806) and Calcutta. [10]
The Admiralty Court of the Cinque Ports had a silver oar of early date, but it was stolen in the 1960s and replaced with a replica. Some local authorities possess examples relating to their former local admiralty jurisdiction. In recent times, new silver oars have been made for admiralty courts in Canada, Australia and New Zealand; [11] in 2014 the Admiralty Court presented a replica silver oar mace to the Corporation of Trinity House on the occasion of its 500th anniversary, acknowledging the work of its brethren in advising the court over much of its history.
In addition to representing the court in session, from the nineteenth century the silver oar has been the insignia of the Admiralty Marshal - an official responsible for serving writs of the court, and carrying out the sale of any vessels seized and disposed of by court decision. [12]
| Vice Admiralty Courts Act 1863 | |
|---|---|
| Act of Parliament | |
 | |
| Long title | An Act to facilitate the Appointment of Vice Admirals and of Officers in Vice Admiralty Courts in Her Majesty's Possessions abroad, and to confirm the past Proceedings, to extend the Jurisdiction, and to amend the Practice of those Courts. |
| Citation | 26 & 27 Vict. c. 24 |
| Dates | |
| Royal assent | 8 June 1863 |
To expedite the administration of maritime law, British colonies were routinely granted subsidiary jurisdiction through independent vice-admiralty courts. These were civil courts with the power to interpret colonial legislation, provided these did not conflict with Admiralty Court decisions or British maritime law.
The first vice-admiralty court in Australia was established in the colony of New South Wales in 1788. The first Vice-Admiral was Arthur Phillip and the first judge was Robert Ross. The court was abolished in 1911 when the Supreme Court of New South Wales was granted the admiralty jurisdiction of the court.
A vice-admiralty court was also formed in Nova Scotia to try smugglers and to enforce the Sugar Act of 1764 throughout British North America. From 1763 to 1765, when American smugglers were caught, they were tried by corrupt judges who received a percentage of the confiscated goods if the defendants were found guilty; therefore, defendants were more than likely to be found guilty.
| Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act 1890 | |
|---|---|
| Act of Parliament | |
| |
| Long title | An Act to amend the Law respecting the exercise of Admiralty Jurisdiction in Her Majesty's Dominions and elsewhere out of the United Kingdom. |
| Citation | 53 & 54 Vict. c. 27 |
| Dates | |
| Royal assent | 25 July 1890 |
| Other legislation | |
| Amended by | |
| Text of statute as originally enacted | |
| Text of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act 1890 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from legislation.gov.uk. | |
1890 saw the enactment of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 27 (UK)). That act provided for the abolition of the imperial courts of admiralty and replace them with local courts to be called colonial courts of admiralty. It was widely considered unsatisfactory that the imperial court should exist separately to the colonial courts, yet use the same facilities and personnel of the colonial courts. [13]
A colonial court of admiralty was established in the British Ceylon in 1891 under the Ceylon Courts of Admiralty Ordinance under the provisions of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act 1890 (UK) to deal jurisdiction over all admiralty and maritime actions. With Ceylon gaining self rule in 1948, jurisdiction over admiralty matters were transferred to the Supreme Court of Ceylon as the Ceylon Independence Act 1947 (UK) made provisions of the Admiralty Act inapplicable. [14]
In Sri Lanka today, admiralty jurisdiction is exercised by the High Court of Colombo, having had the jurisdiction transferred to it from the Supreme Court under the provisions of the Judicature Act No.2 of 1978. [15]
In the United States, the federal district courts have jurisdiction over all admiralty and maritime actions; see 28 U.S.C. § 1333.
In recent years, a pseudolegal conspiracy argument used notably by sovereign citizens [16] is that an American court displaying an American flag with a gold fringe is in fact an "admiralty court" and thus has no jurisdiction. Courts have repeatedly dismissed this as frivolous. [17] In United States v. Greenstreet, the court summarized their finding to this argument with, "Unfortunately for Defendant Greenstreet, decor is not a determinant for jurisdiction." [18]
Admiralty law or maritime law is a body of law that governs nautical issues and private maritime disputes. Admiralty law consists of both domestic law on maritime activities, and private international law governing the relationships between private parties operating or using ocean-going ships. While each legal jurisdiction usually has its own legislation governing maritime matters, the international nature of the topic and the need for uniformity has, since 1900, led to considerable international maritime law developments, including numerous multilateral treaties.
The Court of Session is the supreme civil court of Scotland and constitutes part of the College of Justice; the supreme criminal court of Scotland is the High Court of Justiciary. The Court of Session sits in Parliament House in Edinburgh and is both a trial court and a court of appeal. The court was established in 1532 by an Act of the Parliament of Scotland, and was initially presided over by the Lord Chancellor of Scotland and had equal numbers of clergy and laity. The judges were all appointed from the King's Council. As of May 2017, the Lord President was Lord Carloway, who was appointed on 19 December 2015, and the Lord Justice Clerk was Lady Dorrian, who was appointed on 13 April 2016.
The Federal Court of Canada, which succeeded the Exchequer Court of Canada in 1971, was a national court of Canada that had limited jurisdiction to hear certain types of disputes arising under the federal government's legislative jurisdiction. Originally composed of two divisions, the Appellate Division and the Trial Division, in 2003 the Court was split into two separate Courts, the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal. The court used facilities as the Supreme Court of Canada Building as well as Thomas D'Arcy McGee Building and registry office at 90 Elgin Street.
Prize money refers in particular to naval prize money, usually arising in naval warfare, but also in other circumstances. It was a monetary reward paid in accordance with the prize law of a belligerent state to the crew of a ship belonging to the state, either a warship of its navy or a privateer vessel commissioned by the state. Prize money was most frequently awarded for the capture of enemy ships or of cargoes belonging to an enemy in time of war, either arrested in port at the outbreak of war or captured during the war in international waters or other waters not the territorial waters of a neutral state. Goods carried in neutral ships that are classed as contraband, being shipped to enemy-controlled territory and liable to be useful to it for making war, were also liable to be taken as prizes, but non-contraband goods belonging to neutrals were not. Claims for the award of prize money were usually heard in a prize court, which had to adjudicate the claim and condemn the prize before any distribution of cash or goods could be made to the captors.
The courts of Scotland are responsible for administration of justice in Scotland, under statutory, common law and equitable provisions within Scots law. The courts are presided over by the judiciary of Scotland, who are the various judicial office holders responsible for issuing judgments, ensuring fair trials, and deciding on sentencing. The Court of Session is the supreme civil court of Scotland, subject to appeals to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, and the High Court of Justiciary is the supreme criminal court, which is only subject to the authority of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom on devolution issues and human rights compatibility issues.
Vice admiralty courts were juryless courts located in British colonies that were granted jurisdiction over local legal matters related to maritime activities, such as disputes between merchants and seamen.
In some jurisdictions, an assessor is a judge's or magistrate's assistant. This is the historical meaning of this word.
The Vice Admiralty Court was a prerogative court established in the late 18th century in the colony of New South Wales, which was to become a state of Australia. A vice admiralty court is in effect an admiralty court. The word "vice" in the name of the court denoted that the court represented the Lord Admiral of the United Kingdom. In English legal theory, the Lord Admiral, as vice-regal of the monarch, was the only person who had authority over matters relating to the sea. The Lord Admiral would authorize others as his deputies or surrogates to act. Generally, he would appoint a person as a judge to sit in the Court as his surrogate. By appointing Vice-Admirals in the colonies, and by constituting courts as Vice-Admiralty Courts, the terminology recognized that the existence and superiority of the "mother" court in the United Kingdom. Thus, the "vice" tag denoted that whilst it was a separate court, it was not equal to the "mother" court. In the case of the New South Wales court, a right of appeal lay back to the British Admiralty Court, which further reinforced this superiority. In all respects, the court was an Imperial court rather than a local Colonial court.
Admiralty law in the United States is a matter of federal law.
In the Baronage of Scotland, a Lord of Regality is an ancient noble title. Lords of regality were said to hold a regality - a type of territorial jurisdiction under old Scots law. This jurisdiction was created by erecting lands in liberam regalitatem, and the area over which this right extended became the regality.
Canadian maritime law is based on the field of "Navigation and Shipping" vested in the Parliament of Canada by virtue of s. 91(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867.
The Admiralty and Marine Affairs Office (1546–1707), previously known as the Admiralty Office (1414–1546), was a government department of the Kingdom of England, responsible for the Royal Navy. First established in 1414 when the offices of the separate Admiral of the North and West were abolished and their functions unified under a single centralised command, it was headed by the Lord High Admiral of England. The department existed until 1707 when England and Scotland united to form the Kingdom of Great Britain, after which it was known as the British Admiralty.
During the early 17th century, England's relative naval power deteriorated; in the course of the rest of the 17th century, the office of the Admiralty and Marine Affairs steered the Navy's transition from a semi-amateur Navy Royal fighting in conjunction with private vessels into a fully professional institution, a Royal Navy. Its financial provisions were gradually regularised, it came to rely on dedicated warships only, and it developed a professional officer corps with a defined career structure, superseding an earlier mix of sailors and socially prominent former soldiers.
The Glorious Revolution of 1688 rearranged the political map of Europe, and led to a series of wars with France that lasted well over a century. This was the classic age of sail; while the ships themselves evolved in only minor ways, technique and tactics were honed to a high degree, and the battles of the Napoleonic Wars entailed feats that would have been impossible for the fleets of the 17th century. Because of parliamentary opposition, James II fled the country. The landing of William III and the Glorious Revolution itself was a gigantic effort involving 100 warships and 400 transports carrying 11,000 infantry and 4,000 horses. It was not opposed by the English or Scottish fleets.
SS Kalibia v Wilson, was the first decision of the High Court of Australia on the extent of the power of the Australian Parliament to make laws about shipping and navigation, including the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court. The High Court held that the power was limited to overseas and interstate trade and commerce. There was no separate power about navigation and shipping.
The Admiral of the North and West or Admiral of the North and Western Fleets was a former senior appointment of the English Navy. The post holder was Commander-in-Chief of the English navy's North and Western Fleets operating in the North Sea, the English Channel, the Southern Irish Sea and Atlantic from 1364 to 1414.
The Judge of the High Court of Admiralty was established in 1483 he was the chief law officer of the High Court of Admiralty. The office holder was supported by various officials and existed until 1875.
The Maritime Court of Ontario was an admiralty court in Ontario. It was created in 1877 by a federal statute. The Exchequer Court of Canada succeeded the Maritime Court by a statute passed in 1891. The Exchequer Court continued in 1971 as the Federal Court of Canada.
The King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice deals with a wide range of common law cases and has supervisory responsibility over certain lower courts.
the Court of Session shall hold and exercise original jurisdiction in all maritime civil causes and proceedings of the same nature and extent in all respects as that held and exercised in regard to such causes by the High Court of Admiralty before the passing of this Act
