//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2010] FCA 301
procedural. The Court directed the Registrar to send letters in the form of annexure 1 to the addresses referred to in that annexure, and to place an advertisement in the form of annexure 2 at the general...
No linked legislation citations have been extracted yet.
A ship-sale surplus of $13,515.29 had remained unclaimed after the receivers who were meant to receive it had left office. The Court considered that one final notice should be given before the money was treated as unclaimed and paid to the Commonwealth. Because possible claimants might be international shipping creditors or shareholders, the Court selected Lloyd's List as a suitable way to publicise the claim opportunity. The judgment directs notice steps; it does not record that the funds were ultimately paid or that anyone later claimed them.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
1,693 words · generated 29/09/2026
The judgment concerns the remaining proceeds from the sale of the vessel MV Skulptor Konenkov. In September 2001, Tamberlin J ordered that the surplus from the sale be paid to Patrick Stevedores No 2 Pty Ltd and Patrick Stevedores No 1 Limited, who were receivers and managers of the assets of Baltic Shipping Company in Australia. The amount eventually calculated as the balance was $13,515.29. By that time, however, the receivers and managers had ceased to hold office, and no one had claimed the funds. [1]
The Deputy District Registrar had recently tried to identify anyone who might have an interest in the money. Those efforts had not identified a potential recipient. Baltic Shipping did not appear readily contactable, if it still existed. [2] The Registrar therefore asked the Court for directions under r 80(1)(a) of the Admiralty Rules 1988 about further steps before the money was paid to the Commonwealth's Official Public Account as unclaimed money. [3]
The Registrar proposed writing to the parties and their solicitors at their last known addresses and advertising. The proposed notices were to explain the position, refer to the Court's Guideline for Dealing with Unclaimed Money, and set 30 April 2010 as the date by which claims should be made. [3] The supplied text does not include the annexures to the orders, so it does not show the exact text of the final letters and advertisement.
Rares J accepted that adequate notice should be given one last time before the funds were paid as unclaimed money. [4] In selecting where to advertise, the Court reasoned that Baltic Shipping's financial collapse might have affected creditors and shareholders anywhere in the world. It considered that likely claimants would be involved in international shipping and could receive notice through Lloyd's List. [5] The orders accordingly directed letters and advertising in the international print and online editions of Lloyd's List, with publication in the Lloyd's List News Bulletin if it involved no additional cost.
The decision is a short, practical direction about notice. The Court was not deciding who owned the money, whether any particular person had a valid claim, or whether a claim would succeed. It was deciding what further notice should precede payment to the Commonwealth as unclaimed money. [3]-[4]
The first part of the reasoning was that the absence of claims over a long period did not, by itself, make further notice unnecessary. Rares J expressly considered it appropriate to give “adequate notice one last time” to a person with an interest before payment. [4] That phrasing makes the notice a final opportunity in the circumstances described, rather than an indefinite process of repeated searches.
The second part was practical targeting. Ordinary attempts to ascertain who might be interested had failed, and Baltic Shipping was not readily contactable. [2] The judgment then connected the possible claimant group to the likely audience for an advertisement. Because the company's financial collapse could have affected creditors and shareholders in different countries, the Court considered a publication with an international reach appropriate. [5]
The Court did not merely direct a general newspaper advertisement. It specified Lloyd's List's next available international newspaper edition and all online editions for the period included in the general classified rate. It added the News Bulletin only if that could be done without additional cost. [Orders 2(a)-(c)] These details show that the direction was shaped by both the likely location and the likely professional community of possible claimants, while placing a stated cost condition on the additional bulletin publication. [5]
The decision does not state a general formula for how much notice is sufficient in every unclaimed-money matter. Its reasons connect the notice method to this fund, the apparent international reach of the possible claimant group, and the failed attempts to identify an interested person. [2]-[5] A careful reading should therefore distinguish the particular directions made here from a rule that Lloyd's List must be used in all admiralty or unclaimed-money cases.
The judgment records the relevant procedural setting: the Deputy District Registrar sought directions under r 80(1)(a) of the Admiralty Rules 1988 before payment of the funds to the Commonwealth as unclaimed money. [3] The judgment does not set out the text of that rule, explain its wider operation, or discuss earlier authorities interpreting it. The source therefore supports describing the Court's exercise of its direction-making role in this case, but not a broader account of the rule's legal scope.
Before the directions, the fund remained unclaimed, the intended recipients were no longer acting as receivers and managers, and the Registrar's recent efforts had not located anyone to whom the funds might be payable. [1]-[3] After the directions, the Registrar was required to send letters and arrange the specified advertising. The orders do not say that payment to the Official Public Account occurred immediately, nor do the supplied reasons record what happened after publication.
The judgment's contribution, on the text provided, is therefore a case-specific illustration of notice selection. It treats adequate notice as appropriate before payment and identifies an international shipping publication as suitable where potential claimants might be spread across countries and connected to the shipping industry. [4]-[5] It does not purport to alter a statutory rule, lay down a test for all future cases, or determine the substantive ownership of the proceeds.
At paragraph [4], Rares J said the Court should give “adequate notice one last time” to anyone with an interest before paying the funds as unclaimed money. In plain English, the Court considered that a final public and direct notice process was appropriate, even though there had been no claim over many years. This is the central explanation for making the directions.
At paragraph [5], the Court observed that Baltic Shipping's financial collapse might have affected creditors and shareholders “anywhere in the world”. In plain English, the potential audience was not assumed to be confined to Australia. That international possibility informed the choice of publication.
Also at paragraph [5], the Court considered that people who might claim were likely to be involved in international shipping and likely to receive notice through the international and online editions of Lloyd's List. In plain English, the Court chose a specialised publication because its readership was considered more likely to include people connected to the possible claims than a publication selected without regard to the industry.
The conditional reference to the News Bulletin is significant too: the Deputy District Registrar was to arrange that publication only if it was possible “without additional cost”. [5] The order thus included an extra channel of notice, but only subject to the stated cost qualification. The final orders translated that reasoning into directions about the publication's print edition, online editions, and, if there was no further cost, the News Bulletin. [Orders 2(a)-(c)]
The judgment may be relevant as an example where a court is considering how to publicise an unclaimed fund before it is paid away, particularly where the known recipient is no longer in office or cannot readily be contacted, earlier attempts to locate an interested person have failed, and potential claimants may be overseas. Those are the circumstances the reasons identify. [1]-[5]
The case also illustrates matching a publication to the likely claimant group. Here, the Court linked possible claims to the international shipping industry and selected the international and online editions of a shipping publication. [5] The additional News Bulletin was expressly conditional on no additional cost. These points may be useful in identifying the considerations the judgment itself treated as relevant when choosing notice channels.
The decision does not establish that every unclaimed fund requires advertising in Lloyd's List, that a particular period of notice is always adequate, or that the proposed claim deadline of 30 April 2010 applies beyond the notices described in this case. The deadline appears in the Registrar's proposed notice process recorded at paragraph [3], while the annexures setting out the final notices are not reproduced in the supplied text. The orders themselves direct publication and letters in annexed forms, but those forms are not available here.
The supplied judgment contains no citations to other cases in its reasons, and the material provided does not include later judgments discussing or applying this decision. It is therefore not possible, on this source alone, to say whether later courts followed, distinguished, approved, or limited it.
The judgment itself is narrow and procedural. It records a particular order made on 26 March 2010 in an admiralty proceeding concerning an unclaimed ship-sale surplus. [1]-[6] It should not be described from this source as establishing a binding general rule about notice in all unclaimed-money matters. A fuller account of its precedential treatment would require later legal sources, which are not included in the material supplied for this analysis.
The judgment does not say whether any person responded to the notice, whether a claim was made by the proposed date of 30 April 2010, or whether the money was eventually paid to the Official Public Account. Those later events cannot be inferred from the directions alone.
The supplied text also does not reproduce annexures 1 and 2. As a result, it is not possible to confirm the exact content of the letters and advertisement, including whether they contained the proposed deadline and the reference to the Court's Guideline for Dealing with Unclaimed Money. Paragraph [3] describes the Registrar's proposal, while the orders direct use of the annexed forms.
Finally, the reasons do not explain the broader legal test under r 80(1)(a), address competing notice methods, or compare the expected reach or cost of different publications. They give a concise explanation for the method selected in this case: international shipping interests might be affected, and Lloyd's List was considered likely to reach people in that industry. [3]-[6]
This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on this, relying on it, or using any draft, have a qualified Australian lawyer check it.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 In September 2001 Tamberlin J ordered that the surplus of the fund resulting from the sale of "Skulptor Konenkov" be paid to the plaintiffs being receivers and managers of the assets of Baltic Shipping Company in Australia. Subsequently the balance was calculated to be $13,515.29. But, by the time the calculation was done and the administration of the sale had been completed, the receivers and managers had ceased to hold their office. No-one has claimed the funds. 2 Recent attempts by a Deputy District Registrar to ascertain who might be interested in the funds have failed to identify anyone to whom they may be payable. Baltic Shipping does not appear to be readily contactable, if indeed, it still exists. 3 The Deputy District Registrar has sought directions under r 80(1)(a) of the Admiralty Rules 1988 as to the further steps that should be taken before the funds are paid to the Official Public Account of the Commonwealth as unclaimed moneys. He seeks directions that he advertise and also write to the parties to the proceedings and their solicitors at their last known addresses. The advertisement and letters would refer to the present position, the Court's Guideline for Dealing with Unclaimed Money and provide that claims should be made by 30 April 2010. 4 While there have been no claims over many years, it is appropriate that the Court give adequate notice one last time to any person with an interest in the funds to make a claim for them before paying over the funds as unclaimed money. 5 Since the financial collapse of Baltic Shipping may have affected its creditors and shareholders anywhere in the world, the question then arises as to the appropriate publication in which to place an advertisement. It is likely that those who may claim are involved in the international shipping industry. Such persons are likely to receive notice of a general classified advertisement placed in the international edition of Lloyd's List newspaper and the concomitant online international edition of Lloyd's List. If it is possible to do so without additional cost, the Deputy District Registrar should also arrange for the advertisement to appear in the Lloyd's List News Bulletin. 6 I am of opinion that such a direction should be made. I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Rares.
Patrick Stevedores No 2 Pty Ltd
The Proceeds of Sale of the Vessel MV Skulptor Konenkov
The Court directed the Registrar to send letters in the form of annexure 1 to the addresses referred to in that annexure, and to place an advertisement in the form of annexure 2 at the general classified rate in the next available international newspaper edition of Lloyd's List and all online editions for the period covered by that rate. The Registrar was also directed to arrange publication in the Lloyd's List News Bulletin if that could be done without additional cost. The annexures are not reproduced in the supplied judgment text.