100% Original Essays, Dissertations, Assignments at a Fair Price

24 / 7 Live Support
info@theunitutor.com
+44 203 633 4229
  • 中文 (中国)
  • English

Introduction

The origin and development of the English admiralty and maritime law can be traced back into the 14th century due the increased activity in maritime commerce in the UK (Great Britain and Ireland)[1]. Since then up to the current UK admiralty and maritime law, it has taken numerous revisions of the law, resulting to a chronology of events. Back in the 14th century, the Admiralty High Court dealt with cases involving piracy and other offense committed while on sea. This act was a sign to the outside world by the UK government to show the sovereign power the King had on the seas under his command at the time[2]. During the reign of King Richard II, two statutes where enacted to put a stop on admirals and their deputies handling civil oriented matters. This was as a result of a sharp confrontation with common law courts over jurisdiction by admirals and their deputies to deal with civil matters[3].

The admiralty Court Act of 1840 (UK)[4] gave the admiralty jurisdiction to deal with claim that involved ships mortgages, salvage claims, damages by ships, towage, necessaries and wages of seamen, possession and bottomry. Through this act, the UK admiralty could make authorized rules and with the same bidding power as the common law courts. The Admiralty Court Act 1861 (UK)[5] gave the admiralty court powers to be a court of record with the same powers as a superior court of common law. The act also extended the powers of the court to deal with matters on damage to cargo, building, equipping, and repairing of vessels. The entire jurisdiction conferred through these two acts could be practiced in personam or in rem.[6]

The Judicature Act 1873 (UK) was consolidated to a high court which was then apportioned into several divisions among them divorce, probate, and admiralty and it had the powers to deal with all matters affecting admiralty. In 1956, the Administration of Justice Act was established and it in part gave effect to the Brussels 10th may 1952 convention that touched on civil jurisdiction matters on collision and the arrest of vessels that to the sea[7]. In 1970, the admiralty division of the high court that dealt with matters of divorce and probate was abolished and replaced with an admiralty court that sat as part of the Queen’s Bench Division[8].

The passing of the Supreme Court Act 1980 (UK)[9] is regarded as being the start of the modern UK legislation on admiralty jurisdiction. The act contains international obligation for the UK admiralty especially those that arise from the European Union (EU). According to Aleka Mandaraka-Sheppard[10], the 1981 act is practiced in UK on the admiralty jurisdiction under the Supreme Court Act 1981 (UK).[11] Currently, the UK admiralty law continues being recognized as a specialists’ area, with the principles of the Judicature Act still applicable, but only in particular matters and areas and situations which are caused by the action in rem, which is so far, the feature that distinguishes admiralty law from common law.

 

Maritime lien

The term “lien” under a broad spectrum may be used to mean a legal right or an interest by one on another’s property as a result of a due debt and it exists until the debt is satisfactorily settled[12]. According to Garner,[13] when the term “maritime” is enclosed it them mean an effective method where the injured person has the power to make the vessel herself available as a security. In exercise, maritime lien gives the injured party apportions of the vessel but it does not affect on the ownership of the property. In essence, the vessel is under seizure by the injured party and it is seen as being a privileged claim and it is based on the fact that, in the past, judgments passed concerning collisions made maritime liens appear as being that – a privileged claim.

As argued by Soyer &Tettenborn,[14] the description of the phrase maritime lien is derived from the phrase ‘injuries/damages caused by a ship’ and the English law lays basis on this to award the status of maritime lien to a given category of injury. English admiralty law requires that for maritime lien to be awarded, the ship herself should be the instrument that caused the damaged, referred to as the instrument of mischief.[15] The ship/vessel should be the active and physical causes of the injury regardless of whether it was being guided by an errant navigator. Under the Supreme Court Act 1981[16] the law lists any claim that has been as a result of injury by a ship as a matter under the jurisdiction of the admiralty court.

Some like Gorell Barnes[17] have argued that maritime lien is a privileged claim on a sea-going vessel as a result of a service done to it, an injury caused by it, which are to be carried to eventuation through a legal process. In addition, Scott[18] stated that in history and still today, the essence of the lien privilege whether international, continental, or in the English law, comes into effect automatically in absence of any antecedent formative action and it is in synchrony with the action causing it, and it places a true charge on the vessel and freight of a proprietary nature to the privileged party.

The various definitions of maritime lien passed have shown that the dominant concept for the phrase is that it is a title of empowerment to a party that is injured and this can be justified through a legal claim which when established, is executed without reverse through the relevant law.[19] The various hazards that may befall a ship for example collision are capricious and for the purpose of compensating the aggrieved, admiralty and maritime law has established a proprietary interest in a res. As a result of this feature, the interest remains to cling on the maritime property and the magnitude of the interest with reference to the English maritime law is indicated by the nature of the lien to stretch even after the property has been sold off[20]. This means, under the English admiralty and maritime law, the lien applies even if the injurer tries to intentionally or otherwise change the ownership of the property.

The absolute right of the injured party through lien remains stagnant and active to the property even against a purchaser regardless of whether the sell/purchase was in good faith. Due to the fact that the power to enforce the injured party’s interests remains active, lawyers have referred to it as a right in rem[21], which is also referred to as action in rem meaning a right that is enforceable against the world at large as opposed to a right in personam which is a right enforceable against a specific person prevalent in common law. According to Freestone and Ong[22] not all maritime claims result to a maritime lien[23], but it is important to note that the nature of maritime lien is described as; (i) attaching to the res from the moment when the claim develops (ii) a claim that bears priority upon the res and its aim is to secure benefit for services[24] performed on it or as compensation for injuries/damage causes by it.

The process in rem referred to as The processus contra contumacem[25] is involved in ‘arresting’ the vessel. According to David Wilson,[26] the primary objective of the process was to provide a counteraction to the vessel owner’s probable objection to appear before a court of law and contest the suit against him/her. The processus contra contumacem involved the property or the person of the defendant being arrested by the admiral marshal in whose jurisdiction the matters lies. Specific to the English admiral and maritime law, the arrest could also be done by any other officer or any other person with interests in the property in the same area and time as the defendant[27].

The second stage of the process involves a series of citations being sent to the defendant to appear. In case of default of the first, three others would be sent and in case of default, the plaintiff was to formulate a claim in the form of an article or a draft sentence in the first decree[28]. The process would then end to the penultimate state with the Admiralty Court awarding the possession of the arrested property to the plaintiff in the prinum decretum (first decree) on the basis of the defendant’s contumacy.

 

Arrest in rem

English Admiralty law, the action in rem is characteristic of the proceeding towards enforcing all types if claims related to maritime. The process is more of a procedural device which is meant to ensure the defendants person attendance for the suit and so avoid having the wrong doing vessel as the accused.[29] The arrest in rem differs from an action in personam in the basis of having the vessel, which may be a ship, a cargo, freight, bunker, or even in some cases, the proceeds of the a judicial sale, is the defendant hand in hand with the owner of the vessel. This power to enforce action in rem to maritime liens, maritime claims, or statutory rights is provided by the Supreme Court Act 1981 sect. 21 (2), (3), and (4)[30]. This power can be exercised in the Admiralty jurisdiction of the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice against an offending ship, person, or property as to awarding for a claim or in some cases, against a sister ship.

The provisions for the action in rem avail security for the claim in advance to the judgment. With specificity to the English Admiralty and maritime law, action in rem provides the court with the jurisdiction as well as secures the appearance of the ship owner before the court[31]. The law secures the appearance of the ship owner for the suit instead of having the vessel or the property as the defendant by having special characteristics that compel the owner to appear in person. To admiralty and maritime law is enforced by simply arresting the res. Ordinarily, arrest in rem is not allowed with respect to crown vessels or a vessels that is owned by a foreign nation unless the vessel was in commercial use or intended for commercial use at the time of the cause event. It is however interesting to note that, the registry, the flag, the place where the cause event arose or the ownership of the offending vessel do not affect or restrict the jurisdiction of admiralty court.

In a nutshell, the Supreme Court Act 1981 sect. 20(2) provides a closed list of maritime claims that should be dealt with by the admiralty court of the high court sect. 20(1)a[32]. The act provides for the enforcement in which in rem and in personam proceedings are to be conducted. The list infers the provisions of the Arrest Convention Act 1952 sect. 1(1) from which the list of maritime claims in use in the UK as stipulated in the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1925[33]. The law provides for other specific maritime claims especially under sect. 20(3), (4), and (5) of the act but it doesn’t provide for a general head in the maritime jurisdiction.

Maritime claims to be generally enforced in personam are provided for under the Supreme Court Act 1981 under sect. 21(1) while sect. 21(2) of the same act provides for maritime claims in rem that are permitted for claims on the ownership and possession of a vessel or its shares. The majority of maritime claims that are enforceable through rem fall either on the maritime liens category or the statutory rights in rem.

 

Arrest for maritime liens

The High Court of Justice bears the jurisdiction to arrest and bring an action in rem for the enforcement of maritime lien under sect. 21(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981[34]. Maritime claim is a secured privilege which is derived from the civil law but finds its basis from the European medieval lex maritima[35]. As a result, it places substantive right in another’s property, a ius in re aliena[36] therefore, it should not be considered as being a mere procedural formality. The objectivity with which maritime liens is enforced is manifested in its ability to arise with the claims and to secure the same without registration, formalities, or notification, being independent of ownership or possession of the vessel therefore following the vessels into whoever ownership it is under[37], and the ability to rank in priority immediately after legislative special rights.

Maritime liens therefore do rank over mortgages related to the ship and hypothecs in the event of distributing the proceeds from a judicial sale of the arrested res.

 

Proprietary ranking of maritime liens

Some general guidelines in the English admiralty and maritime law indicate that in the ranking of maritime liens, liens ex delicto rank before liens ex contractu, which then rank in an inverse sequence in attachment to the vessel[38]. Therefore, the general order is maritime liens, possessory liens, mortgage, and statutory liens (statutory rights). Based on the Privy Councilin referred to as The Halcyon Isle decision, it has been conclusively determined that the lex fori provides the guidance the recognition and ranking of maritime liens in the United Kingdom[39]. This guidance states that special legislative rights are to rank first, costs of arrest and custdia legis are to rank second and both are to have the highest priority in the hierarchy of maritime liens. Ranking third is possessory liens and the traditional maritime lines (which include salvage, injury liens, seamen’s & master’s wages, master’s disbursement, and bottomry which rank immediately after each other) are to rank fourth.

Mortgages for a ship registered in the UK takes the next position before all mortgages related to an unregistered ship regardless of the service of notice or the date[40]. Statutory right in rem the the ensuing position and in case a writ is issued and the vessel is sold, the right in rem travels with the vessel to the third party and by such creates the way for specific qualities of inchoate maritime lien that stretch with the ship ate distributed as statuary right in rem.

 

Arrest for enforcement of statutory right in rem

In contrast to maritime liens, there are claims that do not arise to what has been referred to as the ‘traditional maritime liens’[41] in the UK admiral and maritime law. These include maritime claims that are as a result of services provided or delivered to the ship or injuries that are caused by the ship. They are referred to as claims for ‘necessaries’ that have been provided to a sea-going vessel and they include supplies, towage, repair, and bunkers. Statutory rights arte include a breach on charter party as well as contributions of the ship[42]. Statutory rights are simply rights that are provided for through law for the arrest of a ship in an action in rem for a maritime claim.

In comparison to the traditional maritime liens, statutory rights do not arise with the claim and they do not stretch beyond ownership. That means, if the vessel is sold either intentionally or otherwise before the action in rem is dealt with, then they are expunged[43]. In addition, statutory rights do not rank high in priority to ship mortgage and hypothecs meaning, in case of judicial sale of the ship, then statutory rights rank after and not before mortgages and hypothecs in the distribution of the proceeds realized from the sale.

Therefore, statutory right in rem is merely a procedural requirement whose function is to confer a right to a claimant having a certain type of maritime claim to arrest the ship through an action in rem hence a security for the claim. The high court exercises its jurisdiction over such claims through the Supreme Court Act 1981 sect. 21(4)[44]. The law however provides specific under which the law for statutory rights might be exercise and its that; for claims that fall under sect. 20(2)(e) of the supreme Court Act 1981, many of which are statutory right in rem, only one ship may be arrested or served, sect, 22(8)[45].

 

Arrest of a sister ship

Under Supreme Court Act 1981 sect. 21(b) (4) (ii), the arrest of a sister ship is allowed[46]. However, this provision is on condition that the owner benefitting from the sister ship at the time of the action in rem is instituted giants it, is the “relevant individual” personally liable to the claim at the time when the action arose.

Beneficial ownership arises from the sister’s ship arrest clause in the English admiral and maritime law of arrest. Beneficial ownership has been defined as ownership that is vested in an individual who, regardless of whether he/she is the legal owner of the ship, is in any case equally an owner[47]. Nevertheless, it often requires involvement of the court in the English and by extension the commonwealth jurisdiction to ascertain where truly beneficial ownership lies. To do this requires the court to unmask the corporate identity especially in cases where the evidence has been altered as an effort to manipulate the corporate facade with the aim of confusing or defrauding creditors.

 

Issue of writ and rise of statutory rights in rem

Statutory right in rem in the English maritime law arises on the issue of the writ and not the arrest of the vessel[48]. A third party who purchases the ship between the time when the writ in rem has been issued and the arrest can be defeated by the statutory right in rem even if he was unaware of the existence of the statutory right[49]. However, some authors[50] have argued that this would appear fundamentally incompatible and inequitable with the true nature of the statutory right in rem which is a mere procedure for the arrest with the aim of providing pre-judgment security as by so doing, it alters the statutory right in rem to an inchoate maritime lien bearing substantive rights which is far from what it is intended to be[51].

 

Release from arrest

Once the vessel has been arrested, it is can be arrested only after the owner has provided security for the claim[52]. Security can be in the form of payment of money to the court, bail bond, letter of undertaking (LOU) made by the ship owner’s protection and indemnity club (P&I club)[53], or bank guarantee. The security made by the owner is taken as being a replacement for the arrested res therefore in most cases helps to avoid rearrests. The value of the security is determined by the court in its discretion but most a times, the value is sufficient to cover the plaintiff’s reasonably best case arguable[54] as well as the costs and interests applicable but doesn’t exceed the value of the arrested vessel.

 

Wrongful arrest

Wrongful arrest may result in condemnation of the plaintiff for injuries only in situations where the court has established satisfactorily that the arrest was in mala fides[55] or crasssa negligentia[56] simply unjustified arrest (erroneous arrest) don’t qualify the defendant to an entitlement to claim injury even though he might recover costs.

 

Maritime arbitration

According to Meeson & Kimbell[57], disputes related to maritime are best determined through arbitration rather than court action. Based on history of the European maritime disputes resolution, litigants have most preferred and therefore sought relief which is independent of the judicial court system[58]. As a result, the informal courts popular among merchants that were required to deliver justice on the sea, and therefore the early admiralty courts, were structured to do so through arbitration. Regardless of whether the dispute arose from delict or contract, it involved foreigner or locals, the parties to a maritime dispute will prefer to have the matter determined by one or a number of arbitrators for a decision[59].

There are a number for this preference among them: maritime law is a specified niche of the justice system and there are not many judicial officers in the world adept in the area; court practices based on common law are costly and cumbersome; and probably the most important reason is that, arbitration is greatly facilitated by the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award, 1958[60]. The Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation through a number of its provision recognizes that maritime disputes are easily resolved through arbitration rather than action. Ordinarily, the high court will sustain an arbitration clause but it will nevertheless exercise its ancillary powers and make a pronouncement.

 

Development of maritime arbitration

Maritime arbitration is an essential part of commercial arbitration and therefore, it has gradually developed with the continued growth of maritime transport. As a result, it has been argued that maritime arbitration has played a key role in the steady growth of the maritime industry in general[61]. The use of maritime arbitration can be traced back to the 20th century and since then; it has been effective option for settling maritime disputes in various countries and by extension, promotes the steady and constant growth of the shipping industry and constant increase in the global movement and sale of goods. The growth of global maritime economy resulted to diversity in maritime disputes and by effect diversity on the type and number of maritime arbitration. At the start of the 20th century, the nature and type of maritime arbitration cases included charter party, marine insurance, and marine transport. Currently, the type that has remained of the three early cases is charter party but others have grown that include ship collision, pollution[62], and salvage.

The United Kingdom is arguably at the leading position in maritime arbitration based on the long history as a center of maritime arbitration[63]. This position as the leading center of maritime center is however being weakened due to the change in national power f the UK through the democratically elected government and the development of global economy. Nevertheless, all through the development of global maritime arbitration and maritime trade, London has remained to be a major reference point and bench mark for nations setting up their maritime arbitration rules and systems[64]. After the World War II, UK and the entire Asian-pacific further enhanced their maritime forces and therefore the stretched the maritime law to deal with the arising disputes. To date, even in the face of a fierce modern arbitration center, London has remained the most important arbitration center for maritime disputes. This point if evidenced by the fact that the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA) receives and resolves over 90% of the worlds maritime disputes annually[65].

The development of maritime arbitration in the UK has seen the system shift from ad hoc arbitration to institutional arbitration. Ad hoc arbitration is a system that is not managed by any established institutions directly whereas institutional arbitration is a system that  in anchored on a body that usually arbitrates using own rules and guidelines[66]. To determine the case, the parties involved (plaintiff and the defendant) have to appoint arbitrators for the given case, who then form the arbitrating tribunal to hear the case. The institutional arbitration model emerged in the second half of the 19th century and developed to fruition within the 20th century. The system replaces the ad hoc system which is the earlier form that lacked stability. Institutional arbitration has revolutionized maritime arbitration and currently, it is in use not only in the UK, but also in the US, Germany, China, Australia, Tokyo, and Hong Kong[67]. The development of the UK maritime arbitration center meant that in general, international maritime arbitration has been strengthened and made better.

 

LMAA (London Maritime Arbitrators Association)

The association has been established through the Arbitration Act 1996 and amended over time with the current terms of the association being based on the LMAA terms of 2012[68]. The intentions for the creation of the LMAA have been traced back to the Baltic Exchange, a kind of bourse where many of the contracts for charter parties were negotiated by brokers who represented ship owners and on the other side charterers[69]. The association was formed during the ad hoc arbitration system and persons would simply choose full members to the LMAA. At the initial years of operation by LMAA and given the features of ad hoc arbitration and the confidential nature that is required of arbitration, it is difficult to estimate the number of cases the association was able to arbitrate annually[70].

According to a LMAA 2006 report, the association had received 2500 appointments through its full members and 361 of these had been arbitrated and an award made. The hearing of cases is sometimes done by two arbitrators and an umpire therefore; the 2500 appointments don’t necessarily mean the actual number of the cases. Besides the full members of the LMAA, there are other arbitrators therefore; the total number of cases arbitrated by the LMAA annually is estimated to be average 2000[71]. Based on the number of cases that are successfully arbitrated annually by LMAA and an award made, it is deemed that London is the best for maritime arbitration center globally.

The association stands out because of a number of characteristics among them; it has a developed maritime law and the maritime arbitration regime in London has a high level of judges[72] who have made classic cases describing the principles and the spirit of the maritime law. The evidence of the high level judges in English maritime arbitration is the many highly relied upon Lloyd’s Law reports and must-read books on matters maritime law and arbitration. The updates book of this London based publishing firm form the foundation in the creation of new direction in maritime law and arbitration.

 

Conclusion

English admiralty law requires that for maritime lien to be awarded, the ship herself should be the instrument that caused the damaged, referred to as the instrument of mischief. The ship/vessel should be the active and physical causes of the injury regardless of whether it was being guided by an errant navigator. Under the Supreme Court Act 1981 the law lists any claim that has been as a result of injury by a ship as a matter under the jurisdiction of the admiralty court. English Admiralty law, the action in rem is characteristic of the proceeding towards enforcing all types if claims related to maritime. The process is more of a procedural device which is meant to ensure the defendants person attendance for the suit and so avoid having the wrong doing vessel as the accused. In a nutshell, the Supreme Court Act 1981 sect. 20(2) provides a closed list of maritime claims that should be dealt with by the admiralty court of the high court sect. 20(1)(a). The act provides for the enforcement in which in rem and in personam proceedings are to be conducted. The High Court of Justice bears the jurisdiction to arrest and bring an action in rem for the enforcement of maritime lien under sect. 21(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1981. Disputes related to maritime are best determined through arbitration rather than court action. The development of maritime arbitration in the UK has seen the system shift from ad hoc arbitration to institutional arbitration. LMAA has been established through the Arbitration Act 1996 and amended over time with the current terms of the association being based on the LMAA terms of 2012. The association stands out because of a number of characteristics among them; it has a developed maritime law and the maritime arbitration regime in London has a high level of judges who have made classic cases describing the principles and the spirit of the maritime law.

 

Bibliography

  1. Aleka Mandaraka-Sheppard, Modern Maritime Law (Vols 1 and 2) 3rd, (2013) Informal Law Routledge ISBN 9780415843201
  2. Berlingieri, On arrest of ships (5 Ed 2011 Informal Law) ISBN 9781843115502
  3. Charles M. Davis, Maritime Law Deskbook, Compass Publishing Company, Seattle, Wash. 2001.
  4. David Wilson et al., The Law of General Average and The York Antwerp Rules, 11th ed., Sweet & Maxwell, London 1990.
  5. Freestone, Barnes and Ong (Eds), The Law of the Sea: Progress and Prospects (2006 OUP) ISBN 978 0199299614.
  6. Garner, Brian A., A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, 1987, Published by Oxford University Press (U.S.A)
  7. Geoffrey Brice, Maritime Law of Salvage, 3rd, Sweet & Maxwell, London 1999.
  8. Gilmore, Grant and Black, Charles L., The Law of Admiralty, Second edition, 1957, New York Foundation press.
  9. Gunther Treitel & F.M.B. Reynolds, Carver on Bills of Lading, Sweet & Maxwell, London 2001. Michael
  10. Herbert, Paul M., The origin and Nature of Maritime Liens, 1930, Tulane Law Review, The Tulane University of Louisiana.
  11. Julian Cook et al., Voyage Charters, 2nd, Lloyds of London Press, London 2001.
  12. Nigel Meeson& John A Kimbell, Admiralty jurisdiction and practice (4th Ed 2011 Lloyd’s Shipping Law) ISBN 978 1843110432.
  13. Soyer & Tettenborn, Pollution at sea (2012 Informal Law Routledge) ISBN 978 1 842145418
  14. Steven Hazelwood & David Semark, P&I Clubs Law and Practice (2010 Informal Law) ISBN 9781843118817
  15. Thomas J. Schoenbaum, Admiralty & Maritime Law, West Group, St. Paul, Minn. 2001.
  16. Wilford et al., Time Charters, 4th ed., Lloyds of London Press, London 1995.

[1] Freestone, Barnes and Ong (eds), The Law of the Sea: Progress and Prospects (2006)

[2] Thomas J. Schoenbaum, Admiralty & Maritime Law, (2001)

[3] Herbert, Paul M., The origin and Nature of Maritime Liens, 1930

[4] Charles M. Davis, Maritime Law Deskbook, 2001

[5] Julian Cook et al., Voyage Charters, 2nd ed., 2001

[6] Ibid at 4,5 above

[7] Herbert, Paul M., The origin and Nature of Maritime Liens, 1930

[8] David Wilson et al., The Law of General Average and The York Antwerp Rules, 11th ed., 1990

[9] Steven Hazelwood & David Semark, P&I Clubs Law and Practice, (2010)

[10] Aleka Mandaraka-Sheppard, Modern Maritime Law (Vols 1 and 2) 3rd ed. (2013)

[11] Ibid at 9,10

[12] Steven Hazelwood & David Semark, P&I Clubs Law and Practice, (2010)

[13] Garner, Brian A., A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, (1987)

[14] Soyer &Tettenborn, Pollution at sea (2012)

[15] Gunther Treitel & F.M.B. Reynolds, Carver on Bills of Lading, (2001)

[16] Ibid at 11 above

[17] Gorell Barnes, J. in The Ripon City

[18] Scott, L.J., in The Tolten

[19] Gilmore, Grant and Black, Charles L., The Law of Admiralty, Second edition, 1957

[20] Berlingieri, On arrest of ships 5 ed., 2011

[21] When the ship is arrested rather than when the claims arises, and is expunged by the conventional sale of the ship. It ranks after maritime liens and is sometimes referred to as a ‘’statutory actions in rem”.

[22] Freestone, Barnes and Ong (eds), The Law of the Sea: Progress and Prospects (2006)

[23] These justify the arrest of a vessel even if the vessel, which gave rise to the claim, has changed ownership.

[24] Such as repair or salvage

[25] A process of arrest of property to compel appearance of the defendant, a procedure developed in medieval Europe and firmly established in England by the fifteenth century

[26] David Wilson et al., 1990

[27] Nigel Meeson& John A Kimbell, Admiralty jurisdiction and practice 4th ed (2011)

[28] Berlingieri, On arrest of ships 5th ed (2011)

[29] Julian Cook et al., Voyage Charters, 2nd ed., (2001)

[30] Nigel Meeson& John A Kimbell, Admiralty jurisdiction and practice 4th ed., (2011)

[31] Gunther Treitel & F.M.B. Reynolds, Carver on Bills of Lading, (2001)

[32] Geoffrey Brice, Maritime Law of Salvage, 3rd ed., (1999)

[33] Ibid

[34] Steven Hazelwood & David Semark, P&I Clubs Law and Practice, (2010)

[35] Gunther Treitel & F.M.B. Reynolds, Carver on Bills of Lading, (2001)

[36] Ibid

[37] therefore surviving a sale of the ship by mutual agreement, although not a judicial sale

[38] Ibid at 35 above

[39] Aleka Mandaraka-Sheppard, Modern Maritime Law (Vols 1 and 2) 3rd ed., (2013)

[40] Ibid at 34 above

[41] Includes seamen’s wages, master’s wages, master’s disbursements, salvage, damage (caused by the ship), bottomry and respondentia

[42] Ibid at 35 above

[43] Julian Cook et al., Voyage Charters, 2nd ed., (2001)

[44] Freestone, Barnes and Ong (eds), The Law of the Sea: Progress and Prospects (2006)

[45] Berlingieri, On arrest of ships 5th ed., (2011)

[46] Soyer & Tettenborn, Pollution at sea (2012)

[47] David Wilson et al., The Law of General Average and The York Antwerp Rules, 11th ed., (1990)

[48] Wilford et al., Time Charters, 4th ed., (1995)

[49] Ibid

[50] Herbert, Paul M., The origin and Nature of Maritime Liens, (1930)

[51] Gunther Treitel & F.M.B. Reynolds, Carver on Bills of Lading, (2001)

[52] Ibid

[53] Steven Hazelwood & David Semark, P&I Clubs Law and Practice, (2010)

[54] Ibid

[55] Bad faith/malicious

[56] Gross negligence

[57] Nigel Meeson & John A Kimbell, Admiralty jurisdiction and practice 4th ed., (2011)

[58] Herbert, Paul M., The origin and Nature of Maritime Liens, (1930)

[59] Ibid

[60] Thomas J. Schoenbaum, Admiralty & Maritime Law, 2001

[61] Thomas J. Schoenbaum, Admiralty & Maritime Law, 2001

[62] Soyer & Tettenborn, Pollution at sea (2012)

[63] Julian Cook et al., Voyage Charters, 2nd ed., 2001

[64] Aleka Mandaraka-Sheppard, Modern Maritime Law (Vols 1 and 2) (3rd ed., (2013)

[65] Ibid

[66] Gunther Treitel & F.M.B. Reynolds, Carver on Bills of Lading, (2001)

[67] Soyer & Tettenborn, Pollution at sea (2012)

[68] Aleka Mandaraka-Sheppard, Modern Maritime Law (Vols 1 and 2) 3rd ed., (2013)

[69] Ibid

[70] Ibid at 67 above

[71] Berlingieri, On arrest of ships 5th ed., (2011)

[72] Aleka Mandaraka-Sheppard, Modern Maritime Law (Vols 1 and 2) 3rd ed., (2013)


How The Order Process Works

Amazing Offers from The Uni Tutor Sign up to our daily deals and don't miss out!

The Uni Tutor Clients