actions, a notion that is quite different from quasi-derelict
111 vessels. In an effort to
comprehend the role of intention in vessel abandonment or “abandoned vessel”
cases, the focus has to be on the intentions and expectations of the master and the
crew at the time when the decision of abandonment was realised.
112 Whether it is the
law of finds for wrecks, or derelict law for derelicts, both
113 these areas of law are
founded on the doctrine of abandonment and has a deep-rooted relation with
intention and the psychological state of mind. The question in this context is not
whether derelict falls within the category of wrecks or the value of the wreck that
was intentionally abandoned by the owner, the main focus should be on how learned
judges have understood and perceived “vessel abandonment” and rendered respective judgments. In short, the focus needs to be the question of fact and the question of
law with regard to dereliction and abandonment in those different situations.
At the end of the seventeenth century, the unique annexure of intention and
abandonment has been documented in various admiralty cases corresponding to the
“psychological state” during abandonment. However, the question of fact in those
cases did not necessarily represent the psychological state of abandonment of vessel
associated with an individual mind.
114 The master and crew were considered as a
common entity, and the admiralty courts’ decisions ignored the very common fact of
shared intention, inevitably the product of mutual communication of individual
intentions. Then again, what has been exempted from these cases is the substance
of “maritime tort” from deliberate abandonment resulting in the hindrance of
111 Black and Garner (2000), p. 454. “Derelict” has been defined as a “[p]ersonal property abandoned or thrown away by the owner with an intent to no longer claim it, such as a boat deserted or
abandoned at sea by a master or crew”. A vessel is considered quasi-derelict when it is no longer
under the control or direction of those on board. This control over the vessel is lost without actual
abandonment.
112 See generally Kennedy and Rose (2002). Intent is often described as a mental attitude with which
an individual acts. Hence, it cannot ordinarily be directly proved but must be ascertained from
surrounding facts and circumstances. It is also considered as a state of mind with which the act is
done, committed or omitted.
113 Lipka (1970), pp. 98–110. At this juncture it is important to note that there is a close correlation
between derelict law and the law of finds discussed below. Both involve issues of possession and
prima facie ownership in common law terms. If the laws of derelict and finds are treated as
belonging to the same genre, which they are, then it is of equal importance to note that the law of
salvage in a broad sense comprises two branches; namely, finding property and saving property.
The former is particularized as the law of finds in which derelict law is subsumed. The latter, in turn,
is the essence of salvage law as it has existed as custom and practice since ancient times and has
latterly been codified and entrenched in convention law. Currently, it is the International Convention on Salvage of 1989, which has been given effect in the domestic laws of most maritime states.
114 See The Aquila (1798) 1 C. Rob. 37, 40 (Justice W. Scott states, “I say without hope of recovery,
because a mere quitting of the ship for the purpose of procuring assistance from shore, or with an
intention of returning to her again, is not an abandonment”); The Perla (1857) Swab. 230, 230–231;
The Cosmopolitan (1848) 6 Not. of Cas. Supply. xvii, xx-xxviii; The Coromandel (1857) Swab.
205, 208, 209; The Gertrude (1861) 30 L. J. Adm. 130, 131; The Zeta (1875) L. R. 4 A. & E. 460,
462; The Belgia (1941) 71 L1. L. Rep. 21, 22, The Heemskerk (1941) 70 L1 .L. Rep. 35 (where the
vessel was abandoned but the hopes and intentions of the master and crew do not appear to have
been investigated).
An Exposé of Canadian “Abandoned Vessels &. . .
365
111 vessels. In an effort to
comprehend the role of intention in vessel abandonment or “abandoned vessel”
cases, the focus has to be on the intentions and expectations of the master and the
crew at the time when the decision of abandonment was realised.
112 Whether it is the
law of finds for wrecks, or derelict law for derelicts, both
113 these areas of law are
founded on the doctrine of abandonment and has a deep-rooted relation with
intention and the psychological state of mind. The question in this context is not
whether derelict falls within the category of wrecks or the value of the wreck that
was intentionally abandoned by the owner, the main focus should be on how learned
judges have understood and perceived “vessel abandonment” and rendered respective judgments. In short, the focus needs to be the question of fact and the question of
law with regard to dereliction and abandonment in those different situations.
At the end of the seventeenth century, the unique annexure of intention and
abandonment has been documented in various admiralty cases corresponding to the
“psychological state” during abandonment. However, the question of fact in those
cases did not necessarily represent the psychological state of abandonment of vessel
associated with an individual mind.
114 The master and crew were considered as a
common entity, and the admiralty courts’ decisions ignored the very common fact of
shared intention, inevitably the product of mutual communication of individual
intentions. Then again, what has been exempted from these cases is the substance
of “maritime tort” from deliberate abandonment resulting in the hindrance of
111 Black and Garner (2000), p. 454. “Derelict” has been defined as a “[p]ersonal property abandoned or thrown away by the owner with an intent to no longer claim it, such as a boat deserted or
abandoned at sea by a master or crew”. A vessel is considered quasi-derelict when it is no longer
under the control or direction of those on board. This control over the vessel is lost without actual
abandonment.
112 See generally Kennedy and Rose (2002). Intent is often described as a mental attitude with which
an individual acts. Hence, it cannot ordinarily be directly proved but must be ascertained from
surrounding facts and circumstances. It is also considered as a state of mind with which the act is
done, committed or omitted.
113 Lipka (1970), pp. 98–110. At this juncture it is important to note that there is a close correlation
between derelict law and the law of finds discussed below. Both involve issues of possession and
prima facie ownership in common law terms. If the laws of derelict and finds are treated as
belonging to the same genre, which they are, then it is of equal importance to note that the law of
salvage in a broad sense comprises two branches; namely, finding property and saving property.
The former is particularized as the law of finds in which derelict law is subsumed. The latter, in turn,
is the essence of salvage law as it has existed as custom and practice since ancient times and has
latterly been codified and entrenched in convention law. Currently, it is the International Convention on Salvage of 1989, which has been given effect in the domestic laws of most maritime states.
114 See The Aquila (1798) 1 C. Rob. 37, 40 (Justice W. Scott states, “I say without hope of recovery,
because a mere quitting of the ship for the purpose of procuring assistance from shore, or with an
intention of returning to her again, is not an abandonment”); The Perla (1857) Swab. 230, 230–231;
The Cosmopolitan (1848) 6 Not. of Cas. Supply. xvii, xx-xxviii; The Coromandel (1857) Swab.
205, 208, 209; The Gertrude (1861) 30 L. J. Adm. 130, 131; The Zeta (1875) L. R. 4 A. & E. 460,
462; The Belgia (1941) 71 L1. L. Rep. 21, 22, The Heemskerk (1941) 70 L1 .L. Rep. 35 (where the
vessel was abandoned but the hopes and intentions of the master and crew do not appear to have
been investigated).
An Exposé of Canadian “Abandoned Vessels &. . .
365