Farocean Marine, a yacht and shipbuilder in Cape Town, performed work on the motor yacht Summit One (formerly Sipadan Princess) pursuant to an interim agreement dated 26 March 2001 addressed to Earl Romans. Farocean believed Romans had contracted in his personal capacity and was the owner of the vessel. When Romans failed to pay invoices, Farocean arrested the vessel twice. In the second in rem proceedings, a plea was filed alleging that the vessel was owned by Malacca Holdings Limited (a Cayman Islands company wholly owned by Romans), and that Romans had at all times represented Malacca. Farocean then withdrew the in rem proceedings and sought an order attaching the vessel to found or confirm jurisdiction against both respondents as alternative defendants. Farocean contended there was confusion as to whether Romans contracted as principal or as agent for Malacca. The first respondent (Malacca) was a peregrine incorporated in the Cayman Islands, and the second respondent (Romans) was a citizen and resident of the United States.
The appeal was upheld with costs, including costs of two counsel. The order of the High Court (Davis J) was set aside. The Supreme Court of Appeal ordered: (1) attachment of the vessel MY Summit One to confirm jurisdiction over the first respondent (Malacca); (2) joinder of the second respondent (Romans) as a defendant in the alternative in terms of section 5(1) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983; (3) service of particulars of claim on the respondents' attorneys in Cape Town and by facsimile on their Florida attorneys; (4) costs of the application to be borne by the respondents jointly and severally; and (5) the appellant to serve particulars of claim within 30 days.
The binding legal principles established are: (1) To attach property to found or confirm jurisdiction over a peregrine under section 3(2) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983, an applicant must show (a) a prima facie case against the respondent and (b) that the respondent is the owner of the property to be attached on a balance of probabilities. (2) In appropriate circumstances, particularly where an applicant's case and the respondent's denial are mutually destructive, the requirement to adduce independent evidence of a prima facie case may be relaxed, and the applicant may rely on the respondent's own allegations (such as those in a plea or answering affidavit) to establish the prima facie case. (3) Section 5(1) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983, properly construed, permits the joinder of a defendant in the alternative, even where such joinder would subject a person to the court's jurisdiction who would not otherwise be amenable to it. (4) The word 'may' in section 5(1) is permissive and confers a discretion on the court to permit or refuse joinder. (5) The discretion should be exercised having regard to the objectives of the provision (to enable all parties to a maritime dispute to be joined in one action) and the absence of prejudice to the party sought to be joined.
The court observed that the powers of joinder in terms of section 5(1) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983 are far-reaching, but noted that this was clearly the legislature's intention in order to permit all parties to a dispute to be joined in a single action. The court commented that the absence of such a provision could result in the undesirable situation of courts in different countries having to adjudicate on the same or substantially the same issues arising out of the same incident or set of facts. The court also noted it was 'somewhat anomalous' for the respondents to contend that Farocean had failed to make out a prima facie case against Malacca when the respondents themselves contended that Malacca, and not Romans, was the party to the contract. While these observations were not strictly necessary for the decision, they explain the policy considerations underlying the court's interpretation of section 5(1).
This case is significant for establishing important principles in South African admiralty law regarding: (1) The requirements for attachment to found or confirm jurisdiction over peregrini (foreign defendants), particularly the distinction between establishing ownership (on a balance of probabilities) and establishing a prima facie cause of action. (2) The scope and application of section 5(1) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983, specifically that it permits joinder of alternative defendants even where such defendants would not otherwise be amenable to the jurisdiction of the South African court. (3) The flexibility permitted in establishing a prima facie case where an applicant is uncertain whether a party contracted as principal or agent, and the applicant may rely on the respondent's own allegations to establish the prima facie case. (4) The wide powers of joinder in admiralty proceedings, designed to ensure all parties to a maritime dispute can be brought before a single court to avoid fragmented litigation across multiple jurisdictions. The case demonstrates the remedial and practical approach courts should take in admiralty matters to achieve substantive justice.