Brighton v Aquanaut Marine Services Pty Ltd trading as Challenor Shipwright Services [2025] FedCFamC2G 1929

1. The plaintiff has indicated a willingness to permit an inspection to take place of the vessel, the subject of the sale, at 4:00pm on 28 November 2025 subject to an appropriate indemnity.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court's records.

Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 24.04(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 24.04 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).

1. This dispute concerns services provided by the defendant to the plaintiff in relation to repairing a vessel alleged to be the subject of a total loss and for which damages are sought.
2. The sale of the vessel will obviously mitigate the damages to which the plaintiff would be entitled if the plaintiff were to succeed. The defendant's interlocutory application is one for the purpose of seeking an urgent order, presumably to, in some way, suspend the sale, in respective of which the defendant was on notice that a sale was to take place as a result of an email sent on 4 November 2025 saying:

We were instructed that our client intends to dispose of the vessel within the next two weeks in order to avoid incurring further unnecessary costs. If your client does consider it necessary to inspect the vessel, please let us know as a matter of urgency.

1. Notwithstanding the sending of that letter, there was a letter sent annexed to the affidavit on 20 November 2025, which relevantly asserted:

in your letter dated 20 November 2025, you, for the first time, have notified our client of your intention to sell the vessel with less than 24 hours notice

1. The proposition in that letter is both inaccurate and should not have been advanced. The Court expects correspondence between practitioners to take into account their obligations under s 190 and s 191 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) ("the Act").
2. In the present case, the notice to dispose was given at an earlier point in time, being 4 November 2025, makes extraordinary, the assertion that there was no earlier notice as alleged in the letter of 20 November 2025.
3. Mr Harrison, on behalf of the defendant, sought to advance that the timetable between the parties and the service of reports and the need for expert evidence in some way justified the belated urgent application. This Court, in admiralty, can and does hear urgent applications when it is necessary to do so. This application is not one in respect of which the conduct of the defendant justified the making of an urgent ex parte or urgent application bringing it back before this Court.
4. The delay from 4 November 2025 lies at the feet of the defendant. Notwithstanding that, the Court notes that the plaintiff has been willing to identify it will permit an inspection occurring up to at least on 4 pm on 28 November 2025. The obligations between the parties in respect of s 190 of the Act continue to apply, and there is apparently dispute in relation to whether or not an appropriate indemnity can be given. If an appropriate indemnity cannot be given, no doubt the inspection will not be permitted to take place.
5. The Court does not propose to entertain any further interlocutory applications on this subject matter and expects the parties to comply with their obligations under s 190 of the Act. As the matter was not the subject of appropriate urgency, the interlocutory application dated 2 November 2025 is dismissed.
6. It is for these reasons the Court makes the above orders.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment of Judge Street.