THE OWNERS AND/OR THOSE ENTITLED TO SUE IN RESPECT OF A CARGO LATELY LADEN ON BOARD THE SHIP OR VESSEL "GOODEAST" v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "GOODEAST"

-----------------

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

1. This is an application by the Plaintiffs to inspect the ship and I am not allowing the application because it seems to me from the evidence that this is a largely speculative and fishing exercise on the part of the Plaintiffs. There was fire on board the ship but the evidence is that there was practically no damage to the cargo as result of the fire. There were already two inspections and the second one was done in unorthodox circumstances. There was in fact inspection of the engine room on the second occasion when nothing was found to enable the Plaintiffs to suggest that the vessel was unseaworthy because of defective machinery. This new attempt to ask for inspection of the machinery is to me a fishing expedition and is not seeking a genuine inspection in order that the Court is more likely to be assisted by an issue already raised which will be tried by the court. There is no evidence of unseaworthiness of the machinery and the Affidavit evidence in fact confirms this position. Even if there was negligence of the crew that does not mean unseaworthiness of machinery or gives rise to any necessity to inspect the machinery. For me no good case had been made out for inspection.

2. There is also the question of the Plaintiffs not showing a good arguable case. I am not satisfied having regard to the evidence that the Plaintiffs have a good arguable case on the Bill of Lading. The Plaintiffs have adduced conflicting evidence on the Bill of Lading but what is clear is that the Plaintiffs do not have before the Court the original Bill of Lading and that whatever Bill of Lading document it has in its possession or power, that Bill of Lading was not indorsed by the Vietnam Bank (the consignee) to the Plaintiffs. Further, the second set of Bill of Lading held by the Plaintiffs arguably does not bind the Defendants. The first set signed by the Master (which of course binds the Defendants) is not what the Plaintiffs are suing on.

3. So far as the documents sought to be produced now for ship inspection are concerned, I am not persuaded that these documents which the Plaintiffs wish to see now, are necessary for the purpose of inspection. Mr. Kidd is only told about these documents today and he has given an undertaking that all relevant documents in the possession of the Defendants will be preserved. That will be sufficient for the purpose of subsequent discovery if that should arise.

4. In all the circumstances, it seems to me that I should exercise my discretion by not acceding to the inspection sought by the Plaintiffs. The application of the Plaintiffs for inspection is dismissed with costs. The Defendants are also to have the costs of the Defendants' application relating to the Bill of Lading document.