Argentum Exploration Ltd v Republic of South Africa [2024] UKSC 16 (08 May 2024)
Citation:Argentum Exploration Ltd v Republic of South Africa [2024] UKSC 16 (08 May 2024)
Rule of thumb: If you find property (like gold & silver after deep-diving into a shipwreck), are you the owner of it? If it was from a commercial/personal voyage of another person & a period of time passes, yes; if it was in performance of a Government function, no (though this does not sit wholly comfortably with Judges & there is a moral obligation that a donation/commission payment is made in reflection of the fact it would have gone undiscovered).
Background facts: The facts of this were that in 1940 a ship was sailing from Bombay to Durban and it was sunk by hostile action. It was carrying to be melted down & then made into coins by the South African Government – they had purchased the silver. A specialist salvage operation in 2017 by Argentum recovered this vessel. There was $42m worth of silver on board.
Parties argued: Argentum argued that commercial wreckages which are salvaged a prescription period are owned by the finder. The South Africa Government argued that this was not a commercial voyage & so was still the property of the South African Government.
Court held: The Court upheld the arguments of the South Africa Government. It affirmed that the central bank had purchased this for a public purpose in South Africa, so the ‘finders keepers rule’ did not apply.
(It should be explained that this was a tentative Judgment by the UKSC. It should be further explained that Argentum & the South African Government did agree an out of court settlement to remunerate Argentum to some degree for this (it was not known how much they were paid). In these circumstances there is a moral obligation for the Government to pay a reward, even if the UKSC fell short in not actually deeming that they were legally required to.)
Ratio-decidendi:
‘110. … it is necessary to apply the provisions of the SIA which are entirely unambiguous in this regard. Section 10(4)(a) is clear in requiring account to be taken of both the use and the intended use of the cargo when deciding whether there is an entitlement to immunity. In the present case the Silver was not in use for commercial purposes when it was simply being carried as cargo. However, it was not in dispute that the intended use of the Silver was the sovereign purpose of minting currency. As a result, section 10(4)(a) did not remove the general immunity conferred by section 1(1) of the SIA’,
Lord Lloyd Jones
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.