根据《海事管辖权管理法》,南非“海事索赔”的分类

Q3 Social Sciences
Amy Harpur Gevers, Vishal. Surbun
{"title":"根据《海事管辖权管理法》,南非“海事索赔”的分类","authors":"Amy Harpur Gevers, Vishal. Surbun","doi":"10.47348/salj/v140/i1a8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The definition of ‘maritime claim’ in s 1 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983 is the gatekeeper to the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction. It is accordingly critical that the process of classifying a claim as a maritime claim is certain and predictable. However, the elasticity of the wording in the definition can create confusion for claimants in borderline cases. In Kuehne & Nagel (Pty) Ltd v Moncada Energy Group SRL 2016 JDR 0312 (GJ) the court formulated the ‘legally relevant connection’ test to assist it in classifying a claim to enforce a demand guarantee. The test was subsequently relied on in Twende Africa Group (Pty) Ltd v MFV Qavak 2018 JDR 0238 (ECP) in classifying a damages claim for unlawful contractual interference. This article examines the ‘legally relevant connection’ test in the context of both cases to assess whether it is consistent with the definition of ‘maritime claim’. We show that the reasoning followed in Kuehne & Nagel is flawed in several respects, revealing certain fundamental weaknesses of the test. However, the decision in Twende demonstrates that the test is capable of yielding results that align with the policy justification for the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction.","PeriodicalId":39313,"journal":{"name":"South African law journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The classification of a ‘maritime claim’ in South Africa under the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act\",\"authors\":\"Amy Harpur Gevers, Vishal. Surbun\",\"doi\":\"10.47348/salj/v140/i1a8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The definition of ‘maritime claim’ in s 1 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983 is the gatekeeper to the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction. It is accordingly critical that the process of classifying a claim as a maritime claim is certain and predictable. However, the elasticity of the wording in the definition can create confusion for claimants in borderline cases. In Kuehne & Nagel (Pty) Ltd v Moncada Energy Group SRL 2016 JDR 0312 (GJ) the court formulated the ‘legally relevant connection’ test to assist it in classifying a claim to enforce a demand guarantee. The test was subsequently relied on in Twende Africa Group (Pty) Ltd v MFV Qavak 2018 JDR 0238 (ECP) in classifying a damages claim for unlawful contractual interference. This article examines the ‘legally relevant connection’ test in the context of both cases to assess whether it is consistent with the definition of ‘maritime claim’. We show that the reasoning followed in Kuehne & Nagel is flawed in several respects, revealing certain fundamental weaknesses of the test. However, the decision in Twende demonstrates that the test is capable of yielding results that align with the policy justification for the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"South African law journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"South African law journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.47348/salj/v140/i1a8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African law journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47348/salj/v140/i1a8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

1983年第105号《海事管辖权管理法》第1条中“海事索赔”的定义是海事管辖权行使的把关人。因此,将一项索赔归类为海事索赔的过程是确定和可预测的,这一点至关重要。然而,定义中措辞的弹性可能会给边缘情况下的索赔人造成混淆。在Kuehne & Nagel (Pty) Ltd诉Moncada Energy Group SRL 2016 JDR 0312 (GJ)案中,法院制定了“法律相关连接”测试,以帮助其对索赔进行分类,以执行索见即付担保。随后,在Twende Africa Group (Pty) Ltd诉MFV Qavak 2018 JDR 0238 (ECP)中,该测试被用于对非法合同干扰的损害赔偿索赔进行分类。本文将在这两个案例的背景下考察“法律相关联系”检验,以评估其是否与“海事索赔”的定义一致。我们表明,Kuehne & Nagel遵循的推理在几个方面是有缺陷的,揭示了测试的某些基本弱点。然而,Twende案的裁决表明,该测试能够产生与海事管辖权行使的政策正当性一致的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The classification of a ‘maritime claim’ in South Africa under the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act
The definition of ‘maritime claim’ in s 1 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983 is the gatekeeper to the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction. It is accordingly critical that the process of classifying a claim as a maritime claim is certain and predictable. However, the elasticity of the wording in the definition can create confusion for claimants in borderline cases. In Kuehne & Nagel (Pty) Ltd v Moncada Energy Group SRL 2016 JDR 0312 (GJ) the court formulated the ‘legally relevant connection’ test to assist it in classifying a claim to enforce a demand guarantee. The test was subsequently relied on in Twende Africa Group (Pty) Ltd v MFV Qavak 2018 JDR 0238 (ECP) in classifying a damages claim for unlawful contractual interference. This article examines the ‘legally relevant connection’ test in the context of both cases to assess whether it is consistent with the definition of ‘maritime claim’. We show that the reasoning followed in Kuehne & Nagel is flawed in several respects, revealing certain fundamental weaknesses of the test. However, the decision in Twende demonstrates that the test is capable of yielding results that align with the policy justification for the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
South African law journal
South African law journal Social Sciences-Law
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信