Talk:Admiralty court

As far as I can see all of the content of this article, as it refers to the UK, is wrong. There aren't a collection of admiralty courts or maritime courts, only the High Court which has admiralty jurisdiction and has for ages. A trawl through Halsbury's Laws of England suggests that the law is not "based on" civil law either.

I am happy to rewrite the article from scratch, but would that not upset people?

I agree that it is wrong, and I would also add that the article is unbalanced by having the historical discussion of American political history without the proper context. But there were a number of admiralty courts, all along the coast, and even now the Cinque Ports court survives.

Agreed also. I'm not terribly au fait with the subject - but sufficiently to see that the introduction gives the false impression that there are still many specific courts (ie courtrooms) dealing with maritime cases. The Cinque Ports Court of Admiralty is worth mentioning, but a quick skim of Google suggests its existence is purely ritual nowadays [1]. Tearlach 02:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The Cinque Ports Court does survive and is in reality purely ritual; in the coffee-table book "Guardians of the Realm" (or is it "Keepers of the Kingdom"?) there is a ludicrous photograph of the present incumbent (also the Master of the Rolls) standing in a gale on the cliffs of Dover wielding the ceremonial Admiralty paddle, as if to bat back the invader. There was a submission to its jurisdiction in the late 1980's or early 1990's when Gerald Darling was the judge. He had served as a naval pilot and the case was referred to him as it concerned an alleged attempt to down a helicopter with a water cannon as it tried to land on a ship. Sadly, the case settled before trial.

It is also fair to say that there was undoubtedly a strong civilian element to the Admiralty Court until the nineteenth century; one of its most famous judges was Dr. Lushington, who must have been a doctor of Roman law as the universities did not then teach the common law. There are cases in the modern era which make reference back to civilian times; see, e.g., Sir Robert Philimore's judgment in 'The City of Mecca' (1879) 5 PD 28 at p. 31. The difference in character between the civilian Admiralty Court and the common law courts was no doubt one reason behind the 200-year jurisdictional conflict between them that was not resolved until the Admiralty Court Acts of 1840 and 1861. Its civilian character lingers on in the in rem mode of process and the maritime lien.

No merge. The VA courts were separate courts set up under their own legislation viz (lastly?) 26° & 27° Victoriae, cap. XXXIV "An Act to facilitate the Appointment of Vice Admirals and of Officers in Vice Admiralty Courts in Her Majesty's Possessions abroad, and to confirm the past Proceedings, to extend the Jurisdiction, and to amend the Practice of those Courts." Albatross2147 (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone please do some basic research and delete the guff posted in the Admiralty court wiki article.

Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service - Admiralty Court —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.23.191 (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

PS - AIUI there are several courts around the UK where an Admiralty court may be convened, (defined as WORK TYPE). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.23.191 (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Mackovich case

The footnote says "9th circuit", while my link says "10th circuit". Apokrif (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Admiralty court. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150209042751/http://www.mlaus.org/archives/library/1369.pdf to http://www.mlaus.org/archives/library/1369.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://web.uct.ac.za/depts/shiplaw/oar.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journal/FANZMarLawJl/2003/7.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)