DOCSLIB.ORG

Unofficial Translation ARREST of SHIPS ACT, B.E. 2534 (1991) BHUMIBOL ADULYADEJ, REX. Given on the 28 Day of October B.E. 2534;

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Unofficial Translation ARREST of SHIPS ACT, B.E. 2534 (1991) BHUMIBOL ADULYADEJ, REX. Given on the 28 Day of October B.E. 2534; Unofficial Translation* ARREST OF SHIPS ACT, B.E. 2534 (1991) BHUMIBOL ADULYADEJ, REX. Given on the 28th Day of October B.E. 2534; Being the 46th Year of the Present Reign. His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej is graciously pleased to proclaim that: Whereas it is expedient to have a law on the arrest of ships; Be it, therefore, enacted by the King, by and with the advice and consent of the National Legislative Assembly, as follows: Section 1. This Act is called the “Arrest of Ships Act, B.E. 2534 (1991)”. Section 2. This Act shall come into force after the expiration of ninety days from the date of its publication in the Government Gazette.1 Section 3. In this Act: “ship” means a seagoing ship used in the international carriage of goods or passengers by sea; “maritime claim” means a claim arising out of: (a) damage to life, body, or property of any person caused by a ship or the operation of a ship; (b) salvage; * Translated by Ms. Sudkhanueng Somboonwong under contract for the Office of the Council of State of Thailand's Law for ASEAN project. – Initial Version – pending review and approval by the Office of the Council of State. 1 Published in the Government Gazette Vol. 108, Part 196, page 12, dated 11th November B.E. 2534 (1991). DISCLAIMER: THIS TEXT HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR EDUCATIONAL/ COMPREHENSION PURPOSES AND CONTAINS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY. THE OFFICE OF THE COUNCIL OF STATE SHALL ASSUME NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY LIABILITIES ARISING FROM THE USE AND/OR REFERENCE OF THIS TEXT. THE ORIGINAL THAI TEXT AS FORMALLY ADOPTED AND PUBLISHED SHALL IN ALL EVENTS REMAIN THE SOLE AUTHORITY HAVING LEGAL FORCE. 2 (c) agreement relating to the use, hire, hire-purchase or loan of a ship, transport service, or any other like agreement; (d) agreement relating to carriage of goods by sea to which a bill of lading is issued; (e) general average of damage in case that the owner of the ship, the carrier, and the owner of the goods carried therein, have the duty to compensate the owner of the property lost or damaged by a wilful act duly done under necessity for security of the ship, together with the security of the goods carried therein, or to reimburse the expenses incurred under necessity in a special circumstance for common benefits of every party or for security of the ship, together with security of the goods carried therein, provided that there is a legal provision or an agreement between the parties prescribing liability on the matter; (f) loss of or damage to the property carried in a ship; (g) towage by any means; (h) pilotage; (i) procurement of goods or materials for the operation or maintenance of a ship; (j) construction of, repair of or provision of equipment to a ship, or a fee for dock use; (k) service provision by a port, or a due or service fee for the use of a port; (l) wages for loading or unloading goods to or from a ship; (m) wages of ship masters or ship officers; (n) disbursements in connection with a ship paid by the ship master, charterers, agents or shippers on behalf of the owner or possessor of the ship; (o) dispute relating to the ownership of a ship; (p) dispute between the co-owners of a ship relating to possession or use of, or earnings arising in connection with the ship; (q) mortgage of a ship; “claimant” means a person asserting a maritime claim; “competent official” means a person appointed by the Minister of Transport to carry on an execution under this Act; “Court” means the Civil Court, the Thonburi Civil Court and the Provincial Court; “Minister” means the Minister who has charge and control of the execution of this Act. DISCLAIMER: THIS TEXT HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR EDUCATIONAL/ COMPREHENSION PURPOSES AND CONTAINS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY. THE OFFICE OF THE COUNCIL OF STATE SHALL ASSUME NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY LIABILITIES ARISING FROM THE USE AND/OR REFERENCE OF THIS TEXT. THE ORIGINAL THAI TEXT AS FORMALLY ADOPTED AND PUBLISHED SHALL IN ALL EVENTS REMAIN THE SOLE AUTHORITY HAVING LEGAL FORCE. 3 Section 4. Subject to section 5 and section 6, before submitting a claim to the Court, whether the debtor has domicile in the kingdom or not, the claimant who has domicile in the kingdom may request the Court to order arrest of a ship owned or possessed by the debtor with the view to sufficiently securing the performance of the obligations subject to the maritime claim in respect of the ship by way of a request filed with the Court having jurisdiction within which the ship is subject to an arrest order requested by the claimant or the ship is approaching. Section 5. The claimant may request the Court to order an arrest of the ship that the debtor possesses but does not own if the basis of the claimant’s maritime claim arises out of the ship or a business in connection with the ship, and the debtor possesses the ship both at the time of the maritime claim and the time when the request to arrest the ship has been filed with the Court. Section 6. In case that a maritime claim is the dispute relating to the ownership of the ship, the dispute between co-owners as to the possession, use or earnings arising in connection with the ship or the dispute as to the mortgage of the ship, the claimant may not request the Court to order an arrest of any other ship owned or possessed by the debtor than that in connection with the dispute. Section 7. A request for ship arrest shall be made unilaterally. A request for ship arrest shall expressly indicate the description of the maritime claim, the underlying obligation in respect of which the maritime claim is to be exercised, and shall at least contain the details regarding the name of the claimant, the name of the debtor, the name of the ship, the registration number of the ship, the size of the ship, nationality and port of registry of the ship, the name of the master or officer, if known, and the location or place where the ship is docked. Section 8. Upon receiving a request for ship arrest, the Court shall immediately hold an ex parte inquiry. If it is satisfied by the evidence presented by the claimant that the maritime claim alleged is based on a valid ground, and in case that the ship subject to an arrest request is not within the kingdom at the time when the request is filed, the claimant has shown to the DISCLAIMER: THIS TEXT HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR EDUCATIONAL/ COMPREHENSION PURPOSES AND CONTAINS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY. THE OFFICE OF THE COUNCIL OF STATE SHALL ASSUME NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY LIABILITIES ARISING FROM THE USE AND/OR REFERENCE OF THIS TEXT. THE ORIGINAL THAI TEXT AS FORMALLY ADOPTED AND PUBLISHED SHALL IN ALL EVENTS REMAIN THE SOLE AUTHORITY HAVING LEGAL FORCE. 4 satisfaction of the Court that such ship will enter the kingdom and become subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court shall order the arrest of the ship. In ordering a ship arrest under paragraph two, in case that the debtor is not domiciled in the kingdom, the Court may order the claimant to place security with the Court as it sees appropriate before the execution of the order of ship arrest in order to secure against damage caused by the arrest for which the claimant may be liable to the debtor. However, in case that the debtor is domiciled in the kingdom, the Court shall order the claimant to place security with the Court before the execution of the order of ship arrest in any case, unless the claimant has shown to the satisfaction of the Court that any other property of the debtor within the kingdom is insufficient for the debtor’s performance of obligations. An order of ship arrest under paragraph two shall fix security that the debtor or person under section 22 shall place with the Court in order to request for a release of the ship. An order of ship arrest under this section shall be final. Section 9. In an execution of an order of ship arrest, the Court shall immediately issue a warrant of ship arrest and deliver it to the executing officer. Such executing officer shall be able to execute the warrant of ship arrest throughout the kingdom. The warrant of ship arrest under paragraph one shall be made in compliance with the form prescribed by the Minister of Justice. Section 10. Before an executing officer executes an arrest of the ship, the claimant shall pay a ship arresting fee at the rate of one percent of the total amount claimed, but not exceeding one hundred thousand baht. In case that the claimant brings a maritime claim to the Court, the ship arresting fee under paragraph one shall be deducted from the court fee payable by the claimant, and the ship arresting fee shall be deemed part of the Court costs under the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of the claim. Section 11. Upon receiving a warrant of ship arrest from the Court, the executing officer shall notify the authority in charge of port clearance by telephone, telegraph, telex or by any other means that the Court has ordered an arrest of the ship without delay. Such notification shall be in accordance with the rules prescribed by the Minister. DISCLAIMER: THIS TEXT HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR EDUCATIONAL/ COMPREHENSION PURPOSES AND CONTAINS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ship Arrests in Practice 1 FOREWORD
    SHIP ARRESTS IN PRACTICE ELEVENTH EDITION 2018 A COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE TO SHIP ARREST & RELEASE PROCEDURES IN 93 JURISDICTIONS WRITTEN BY MEMBERS OF THE SHIPARRESTED.COM NETWORK Ship Arrests in Practice 1 FOREWORD Welcome to the eleventh edition of Ship Arrests in Practice. When first designing this publication, I never imagined it would come this far. It is a pleasure to announce that we now have 93 jurisdictions (six more than in the previous edition) examined under the questionnaire I drafted years ago. For more than a decade now, this publication has been circulated to many industry players. It is a very welcome guide for parties willing to arrest or release a ship worldwide: suppliers, owners, insurers, P&I Clubs, law firms, and banks are some of our day to day readers. Thanks are due to all of the members contributing to this year’s publication and my special thanks goes to the members of the Editorial Committee who, as busy as we all are, have taken the time to review the publication to make it the first-rate source that it is. The law is stated as of 15th of January 2018. Felipe Arizon Editorial Committee of the Shiparrested.com network: Richard Faint, Kelly Yap, Francisco Venetucci, George Chalos, Marc de Man, Abraham Stern, and Dr. Felipe Arizon N.B.: The information contained in this book is for general purposes, providing a brief overview of the requirements to arrest or release ships in the said jurisdictions. It does not contain any legal or professional advice. For a detailed synopsis, please contact the members’ law firm.
    [Show full text]
  • STUDY RELATING to LIABILITY for WRONGFUL ARREST Summary Of
    STUDY RELATING TO LIABILITY FOR WRONGFUL ARREST Summary of NMLAs answers to the CMI questionnaire By the Rapporteur1 to the CMI IWG Aleka Sheppard [ Where there are [ ] in the text is the Rapporteur’s comment in an attempt to explain the meaning of the particular answer] Table of contents I. INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS: ............................................................................. 17 1. a) Please advise which, if any, of the following Conventions your jurisdiction is a party to and has given effect to in its legislation: .................................................................................. 17 i) Arrest Convention 1952 ....................................................................................................... 17 ii) Arrest Convention 1999 ...................................................................................................... 17 iii) Maritime Liens and Mortgages Convention 1926 ................................................................ 17 2. iv) Maritime Liens and Mortgages Convention 1993 ......................................................... 17 b) If none of the above is made part of your national law, or in any event, what are the grounds on which a vessel can be arrested in your country? ................................................................. 17 A. Australia and New Zealand: ................................................................................................... 17 B. Brazil: ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ship Arrest in Greece
    SHIP ARREST IN GREECE Christos Th. Vardikos, Attorney at law Honorary Consul of the Commonwealth of Dominica, Partner at Vardikos & Vardikos Overview The Greek legal system provides basically for two types of seizure of the assets of a debtor, serving two different purposes, i.e. the provisional seizure, aiming to secure/ safeguard a claim (saisie-conservatoire) and the executory seizure, being one of the initial stages of the procedure for the enforcement of a title, leading to the public sale of the seized assets (saisie-execution). Applicable Laws Applicable International Convention to the arrest of ships in Greece. As regards vessels, Greece has ratified the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to the Arrest of Seagoing Ships (10.05.1952) which was implemented in Greece by Legislative Decree 4570/1966(the “Convention”). a. provisional seizure, aiming to secure/safeguard a claim (saisie-conservatoire) b. executory seizure, being one of the initial stages of the procedure for the enforcement of a title, leading to the public sale of the seized assets (saisie-execution) Provisional seizure (saisie-conservatoire) The Petioner(s): Any party alleging to have a claim against the owners of a specific vessel may apply for her arrest as Petitioner. The Respondent (s): The registered owner (please see par 6) The Petition: The petition in order to be complete should comprise the following elements: Full identity of the Petioner Full identity of the Respondent Description of the Vessel Factual allegations
    [Show full text]
  • Real World Challenges: a Practical Guide to Maritime Arrest, Attachment and Judicial Sales Maritime Law Association of the United States April 29, 2015
    Real World Challenges: A Practical Guide to Maritime Arrest, Attachment and Judicial Sales Maritime Law Association of the United States April 29, 2015 Presented By G. Robert Toney, Chairman National Maritime Services There are numerous practical challenges encountered in the arrest and subsequent custody period, particularly for vessels that are detained for a significant period of time. Most commercial ship arrest actions are intended for the claimant to obtain immediate payment or security and characteristically last only a few days. Today’s challenging and uncertain global economy, lack of available credit, unstable freight rates and corresponding ship values have adversely-affected ship owners and charterers, increasing the potential for long-term arrests because owners do not have the resources or desire to satisfy the claim or post alternate security. The arrest period may also be affected when additional parties intervene in the action, complicating the circumstances and the related court proceedings. Claimants and their respective advisors must acknowledge the risks associated with a vessel remaining under arrest for a significant period of time, assessing the potential costs before executing against a ship and considering how they will react to various scenarios as the custody period unfolds. INITIAL ARREST AND EVALUATION Claimants generally over-value target vessels, underestimate the likelihood of an arrest going long-term and the cost associated with keeping the vessel under arrest. This is particularly dangerous, as the arresting party(ies) are generally responsible for the costs of keeping an arrested ship. Arrest actions can potentially extend beyond a full 1 year with costs exceeding $1 million.
    [Show full text]
  • SEAFARER SUBJECT GUIDE SHIP ARREST for SEAFARERS' WAGES in POLAND This Guide Deals with the Rights of Seafarers of Any Nationa
    SEAFARER SUBJECT GUIDE SHIP ARREST FOR SEAFARERS’ WAGES IN POLAND This Guide deals with the rights of seafarers of any nationality to arrest a ship for unpaid or underpaid wages in a port in Poland. This document is not intended to be legal advice, nor does it constitute legal advice. If a seafarer intends to arrest a ship in Poland, he is strongly advised to consult a lawyer qualified to practise in that country. *A full text version of this Subject Guide including footnotes will become available for subscription in due course. In the meantime if there is a specific inquiry on any Subject Guide, please contact SRI. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Can a seafarer arrest a ship for unpaid wages regardless of his nationality and regardless of the flag of the ship? 1.1 As a general rule, a seafarer may arrest a ship in Poland for unpaid wages. Poland is a party to the International Convention Relating to the Arrest of Sea-Going Ships 1952 (‘the 1952 Convention’), which states that a ship may be arrested to secure maritime claims, and, among those claims, wages of masters, officers, or crew are listed. According to the 1952 Convention, ‘arrest’ means the detention of a ship by judicial process to secure a maritime claim, but does not include the seizure of a ship in execution or satisfaction of a judgment. 1.2 Apart from regulations of the 1952 Convention, there are no specific regulations governing ship arrests under the Polish law. The right to arrest a ship exists regardless of the claimant’s nationality and the flag of the ship.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Briefing Cargo Claims in India
    JULY 2 017 LE GAL BRIEFING Sharing the Club’s legal expertise and experience Cargo claims in India LEGAL BRIEFING Captain Sumit Madhu Sharing expertise Syndicate Manager L4 Sumit joined Thomas Miller after a career at The UK P&I Club has collaborated with sea, primarily on Advocate, Mr V. Subramanian, to issue this tankers, LPG and LNG vessels. Sumit is also a Legal Briefing on ‘Cargo Claims in India’. This Quality Management is the third Legal Briefing in this series, Systems Lead Auditor with experience in TMSA, terminal and vessel audits. providing guidance to Members on the Sumit speaks Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi and Malayalam. His team looks after specific issues relating to cargo claims in the Members from Eastern Europe to jurisdictions covered. Other briefings in this Russia, including India, and have expertise in all issues relating to India. series cover Cargo Claims in China and Cargo Direct +44 20 7204 2114 Claims in the United States. [email protected] If Members have any questions on any part of LEGAL BRIEFINGS TEAM the briefing, please get in touch with your Jacqueline Tan usual Club contact. Senior Claims Executive Jacqueline is a qualified Our thanks to Mr V. Subramanian (Kumar), barrister and solicitor. She handles FDD and Advocate, Venky’s Chambers, 11 4, Maker P&I cases and is the Chambers, 3, Nariman Point, Mumbai 4000 21 , editor of legal publications for the India, for his assistance with this briefing. Club. Jacqueline speaks Malay, French and Hokkien. She is also a member of the Club’s Legal and Environmental Team working with Dr Chao Wu.
    [Show full text]
  • Maritime Arrest Legal Reflections on the International Arrest Conventions and on Domestic Law in Germany and Sweden
    University of Stockholm Faculty of Law Maritime Arrest Legal Reflections on the International Arrest Conventions and on Domestic Law in Germany and Sweden Thesis for obtaining the degree of a “Master of International Law” with specialization in Maritime and Transport Law (LL.M.) Andree Kirchner 6 March 2001 Supervisor: Professor Dr. Hugo Tiberg Director, Axel Ax:son Johnsons Institut för Sjörätt och annan Transporträtt Maritime Arrest CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................III Andree Kirchner I. THE ARREST CONVENTIONS............................................................................................ 2 A. THE 1952 ARREST CONVENTION.............................................................................................2 B. THE 1999 ARREST CONVENTION.............................................................................................8 II. GERMANY............................................................................................................................ 14 A. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................14 B. MARITIME ARREST...............................................................................................................15 1. Requirements of Arrest.................................................................................................... 15 a) Claim of Arrest ............................................................................................................15
    [Show full text]
  • Maritime Attachment and Vessel Arrest in the US
    View the online version at http://us.practicallaw.com/w-001-8160 Maritime Attachment and Vessel Arrest in the US BRUCE PAULSEN AND JEFFREY DINE, SEWARD & KISSEL LLP, WITH PRACTICAL LAW LITIGATION A Practice Note on attaching and arresting Rule C is used to enforce a maritime lien or certain statutory rights against a vessel or other property in rem. Under Rule C, vessels and other property in the US. the property of the defendant that is subject to a maritime lien is Specifically, this Note explains the grounds for subject to arrest regardless of whether the defendant can be found in the district. Sister or associated ship arrest is not available. attachment and arrest under the Supplemental Federal statutes exempt vessels and other property owned or Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and operated by or for the US or a federally owned corporation from arrest. They also limit the circumstances under which vessels Asset Forfeiture Actions of the Federal Rules of or property of foreign states is subject to arrest or attachment Civil Procedure, the procedure for obtaining an (46 U.S.C. § 30908; 28 U.S.C. § 1605). order of attachment and the arrest of vessels. When a Claimant May Obtain an Order of Maritime Attachment or Arrest Ships are by their nature transitory property. and shipowners are Under Rule B, a claimant must have a prima facie valid maritime located worldwide. The laws of the US and other nations recognize claim against a defendant not present in the district for jurisdictional that enforcement of judgments against shipowners, the enforcement or service of process purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Stallion Shipping Judgment
    Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWCA Civ 2760 Case No: 2018/2132 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES ADMIRALTY COURT (QBD) THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TEARE [2018] EWHC 2033 (Admlty) Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 11/12/2018 Before : MASTER OF THE ROLLS SIR TERENCE ETHERTON LORD JUSTICE GROSS and LORD JUSTICE FLAUX - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : STALLION EIGHT SHIPPING CO. S.A. Appellant - and - NATWEST MARKETS PLC Respondent (formerly known as The Royal Bank of Scotland plc) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tim Lord QC and Geoffrey Kuehne (instructed by Hill Dickinson LLP) for the Appellant Robert Bright QC and Charles Holroyd (instructed by Watson, Farley & Williams LLP) for the Respondent Hearing date : 6 November 2018 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Approved Judgment Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. Double-click to enter the short title Sir Terence Etherton MR, Lord Justice Gross, Lord Justice Flaux : INTRODUCTION 1. This is the judgment of the Court, to which we have each substantially contributed. 2. The Appellant (“Owners”) appeals from the judgment and order of Teare J dated 31 July 2018 (“the judgment” and “the order” respectively) dismissing the application to release the ship, the M.V. Alkyon (“the vessel”) from arrest unless the Respondent (“the Bank”) provided a cross-undertaking in damages for the loss flowing
    [Show full text]
  • Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims: Multiple Perspectives and Legal Implications
    FACULTY OF LAW Lund University Kourosh Taheri Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims: Multiple Perspectives and Legal Implications Supervisor: Professor Proshanto K. Mukherjee JASM01 Master Thesis Maritime Law 30 higher education credits 2013 Table of Contents SUMMARY 4 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 6 INTRODUCTION 7 1.1 Purpose and Composition 8 1.2 Research and Material 9 EVOLUTION OF THE CONCEPT OF LIMITATION OF LIABILITY 10 2.1 The Origin of the Concept of Limitation of Liability 10 2.2 Common Law Concept of Limitation of Liability 16 2.3 United States’ Limitation of Liability 20 OVERVIEW OF THE INTERNATIONAL MARITIME CONVENTIONS 22 3.1 International Convention on Limitation of Liability 1924 22 3.2 International Convention relating to the Limitation of Liability 1957 23 3.3 Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC) 1976 24 3.4 International Bunkers Convention 2001 27 3.5 Civil Liability Convention 1992 29 3.6 USA Oil Pollution Act (OPA) 1990 31 JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVES OF LIMITATION OF LIABILITY 35 4.1 Public Policy versus Justice 35 4.2 Conduct Barring Limitation 36 4.3 The Rule of Attribution 38 4.4 Personal Injury Cases 42 2 4.5 International Safety Management Code 45 MULTI-PERSPECTIVES ANALYSIS ON LIMITATION OF LIABILITY 50 5.1 Deliberation; Limitation as Anachronism or Necessity 50 5.2 Legal Expectation of Justice 51 5.3 Legal- Economic Theory Analysis 52 5.4 Compensation versus Deterrence 57 5.5 Limitation of Liability and Role of Insurance 60 5.6 Promotion of the Trade 63 5.7 Corporate Limitation and Maritime Limitation of liability 64 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 66 BIBLIOGRAPHY 69 3 SUMMARY The thesis is an attempt to analyse the concept of limitation of liability for maritime claims with multiple legal and policy perspectives.
    [Show full text]
  • Ship Arrest and Security
    Industry expertise June 2018 Club Cover & Rules Ship arrest and security Introduction International law P&I clubs are often contacted by members with In many countries, maritime law and, in requests for security to be provided, so as to particular, the right to arrest a ship reflects the avoid the arrest of a ship or to release a ship provisions of two international conventions: The from arrest. The arrest of a ship is one method International Convention Relating to the Arrest that a potential claimant may use to secure their of Seagoing Ships, Brussels, 10 May 1952 (the claim, with other means including, but not Arrest Convention 1952) and the Collision limited to: liens, attachments and freezing Convention 1952. It should be noted that the injunctions. In many jurisdictions, the arrest Arrest Convention 1999, although adopted, is process is relatively straightforward. limited in its application, being in force in only a Significantly, as a matter of English law, unless few countries, with the dominant convention exercised with bad faith or gross negligence, remaining the 1952 Convention. The UK is a there is no remedy for a shipowner even if it signatory to the Arrest Convention 1952, which transpires that the ship in question was has been enacted into statute and falls under the wrongfully arrested. Thus, it is a powerful Admiralty Jurisdiction of the English High Court. weapon for a claimant as, without a detailed examination of the claim, the defendant’s ship Under the Arrest Convention 1952, ‘arrest’ is can be stopped from trading with often only a defined in Article 1(2) as: “the detention of a ship by remote possibility of the claimant having to pay judicial process to secure a maritime claim, but does damages for wrongful arrest.
    [Show full text]
  • Landmark Court of Appeal Decision on Ship Arrest Counter-Security and Wrongful Arrest Damages 3
    BRIEFING LANDMARK COURT OF APPEAL DECISION ON SHIP ARREST C OUNTER- SECUR ITY AND WRONGFUL ARREST DAMAGES DECEMBER 2018 ● ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL CONFIRMS FIRST INSTANCE DECISION THAT COUNTER SECURITY IS NOT REQUIRED WHEN ARRESTING A VESSEL ● COUNTER SECURITY WILL ONLY BE ORDERED IN EXTREMELY RARE CASES ● MALICE / GROSS NEGLIGENCE TEST FOR WRONGFUL ARREST DAMAGES CONFIRMED In a landmark ruling that has brought welcome clarity to a legal ‘hot topic’ that has “THE JUDGMENT ON been debated for many years, the English Court of Appeal has now upheld1 the first APPEAL HAS, IT IS HOPED, instance decision of the Admiralty Court in The Alkyon2. WFW acted for the successful mortgagee bank on both occasions and produced a briefing note in FINALLY DISPELLED August this year on the Admiralty Court’s ruling. PREVIOUS DOUBTS AS TO WHETHER A PARTY WHO The judgment on appeal has, it is hoped, finally dispelled previous doubts as to whether a party who arrests a ship in England may be ordered to give a cross- ARRESTS A SHIP IN undertaking in damages (and, if so, on what terms, including provision of counter- ENGLAND MAY BE security) and, if not, in what circumstances, if any, the court might exercise its ORDERED TO GIVE A discretion to require such counter-security following a ship’s arrest, on an application CROSS-UNDERTAKING IN by the shipowner for the ship’s release. DAMAGES.” This briefing addresses the key issues upon which the case turned and looks at the ramifications of the decision for shipowners and those wishing to arrest ships.
    [Show full text]