The fishing vessel Mi Jay was lost at sea. The vessel sailed from Nelson on 22 November 2005. Her movements after leaving port were unknown. All that was known was that the master intended to fish at a location off the Canterbury coast. On 19 December 2005 the bodies of two crewmen were found in a life raft. The skipper had never been found. Proceedings were brought against the company which owned the Mi Jay (“CFL”) under section 65(1)(a) of the Maritime Transport Act 1994 (“Operates, maintains, or services … any ship …in a manner which causes unnecessary danger or risk to any other person”) on the basis that it “operated” the vessel in a manner causing unnecessary danger or risk to other persons. It was alleged that unnecessary risk was caused. Proceedings were also brought against the sole director of CFL under section 410(3) of the Maritime Transport Act 1994 on the basis that the act that constituted the offence took place with the director’s authority, permission or consent and that the director knew or could reasonably be expected to have known that the offence was to be or was being committed and failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent or stop it. The defendants submitted inter alia that it was the skipper who “operated” the vessel for the purposes of section 65(1)(a) and not CFL.