Royal Bank of Scotland plc v. Ship Golden Trinity et al., (2000) 186 F.T.R. 288 (TD)

• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 24, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2000), 186 F.T.R. 288 (TD)

Royal Bk. v. Ship Golden Trinity (2000), 186 F.T.R. 288 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.119

The Royal Bank of Scotland plc (plaintiff) v. The Owners and all others interested in the Ship "Golden Trinity" and Golden Trinity Maritime Inc. (defendants)

(T-32-99)

The Royal Bank of Scotland plc (plaintiff) v. The Owners and all others interested in the Ship "Kimisis III" and Madonna Navigation (Malta) Limited (defendants)

(T-38-99)

The Royal Bank of Scotland plc (plaintiff) v. The Owners and all others interested in the Ship "Ypapadi" and Ypapadi Maritime Inc. (defendants)

(T-119-99)

Indexed As: Royal Bank of Scotland plc v. Ship Golden Trinity et al.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Hargrave, Prothontary

May 29, 2000.

Summary:

A ship was sold and proceedings were ongoing regarding priorities to the sale proceeds. A necessaries supplier which claimed against the sale proceeds argued that cross-examination on claim affidavits and production of documents ought to be broad. At issue therefore was the scope of cross-examination on the affidavits of claim.

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, set out the principles applicable to cross-examination on claim affidavits.

Admiralty - Topic 8339

Practice - Actions in rem - Sale - Affidavits of claim (incl. cross-examination) - A ship was sold and proceedings were ongoing regarding priorities to the sale proceeds - A necessaries supplier which claimed against the sale proceeds argued that cross-examination on claim affidavits and production of documents ought to be broad - At issue therefore was the scope of cross-examination of the affidavits of claim - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, set out principles applicable regarding cross-examination on affidavits of claim - See paragraphs 15 to 22.

Practice - Topic 3687

Evidence - Affidavits - Use of - Cross-examination - [See Admiralty - Topic 8339 ].

Cases Noticed:

Bland v. National Capital Commission et al. (1989), 29 F.T.R. 232 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

Swing Paints Ltd. v. Minwax Co., [1984] 2 F.C. 521 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

Thomson v. Thomson & Elliott, [1948] O.W.N. 137 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

LaFlamme Fourrures (Trois-Rivieres) Inc. et al. v. LaFlamme Fourrures Inc. (1986), 3 F.T.R. 48; 8 C.P.R.(3d) 315 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 6].

Merck & Co. et al. v. Apotex Inc. (1996), 110 F.T.R. 155; 67 C.P.R.(3d) 147 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 6].

Bank of Scotland v. Ship Nel et al. (1998), 144 F.T.R. 47 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 7].

Bally-Midway Manufacturing Co. v. M.J.Z. Electronics Ltd. (1984), 75 C.P.R.(2d) 160 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 7].

Merck & Co. et al. v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al. (1998), 146 F.T.R. 249; 80 C.P.R.(3d) 550 (T.D.), affd. (2000), 249 N.R. 15 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance) et al. (1999), 163 F.T.R. 109 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 8].

Stella-Jones Inc. et al. v. Hawknet Ltd. et al., [2000] F.T.R. Uned. 59 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 13].

Counsel:

Peter Bernard, for the plaintiff;

Glenn Morgan, for the claimant, Tramp Oil & Marine Ltd.

Solicitors of Record:

Campney & Murphy, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the plaintiff;

Davis & Co., Vancouver, British Columbia, for the claimant, Tramp Oil & Marine Oil.

This matter was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, on May 24, 2000, before Hargrave, Prothonotary, of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on May 29, 2000.