Shipping 2026

ISRAEL Trends and Developments Contributed by: Yoav Harris and Domiana Abboud, Harris & Co Maritime Law Office

Registration In MV BADR (2022), the Haifa Maritime Court accepted the owner’s claim and held that a vessel registered in Libya cannot also be registered in Israel, thus ordering cancellation of the Israeli registration; this was done ex parte, without the consent of the owners (a Libyan government company). In its judgment, the Haifa Maritime Court referred not only to the Israeli Shipping Act 1960 and the relevant regulations relating to registrations of vessels, but also to the Convention on the High Sea 1958 (to which Israel is a signatory party) and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 1994 (UNCLOS) (“the Law of the Sea”) – under which ships shall sail under the flag of one state only (Article 94). Israel is not a signatory party to UNCLOS but its official position, as presented recently before the Supreme Court (in a different mat - ter), is that customary international law is incorporat - ed into Israeli law insofar as there is no contradiction between the two. Mortgage In Vapi Kredi Banaksi v MV Hurriye Ana (2020), the Haifa Maritime Court denied a bank’s claim to enforce a mortgage that was written in the vessel’s registra - tion. The Court held that the validity of the loan agree - ment was not proven, and that no information was provided in relation to the payment schedule agreed with the debtor (which was not the owner) or the exact amount of remaining debt. The fact that a mortgage is written in the vessel’s registration is not enough to have it enforced. Cargo claims Under the Order of Carriage of Goods in Sea, as amended in 1992, Israeli law has adopted the Hague- Visby Rules, which apply to any B/L that governs the sea carriage of cargo from any Israeli port, or from any port of a country that is a party to either the Hague or the Hague-Visby Rules. In a Supreme Court judgment in the matter of Civil Appeal 7779/09 HDI v Orl , it was held that the quanti - ties stated in the B/L are prima facia evidence not only towards the owners, but also towards the underwriter insuring the cargo (which was carried under the B/L).

denied the goods and rejected the bill of lading (B/L) issued (and who did not become the holder), has no title to sue for its commercial losses associated with the purchasing of substitute cargos. The court dis - missed the maritime claim filed under the maritime lien for “damage done to the goods”. This decision has been appealed and is pending before the Supreme Court. Sister-ship arrests In MV Huriye Ana (2017), the Maritime Court held that Israeli law did not allow for a sister-ship arrest, as no such authority is mentioned in the Admiralty Acts of 1840 and 1861, or in the Israeli Shipping Act 1960. Furthermore, Israel is not a signatory party to any of the Conventions allowing such an arrest (ie, the Brus - sels Convention 1952 and the Geneva Convention 1999). In the matter of MV OSOGOVO (2021), while denying a supplier’s arrest application for necessaries supplied to sister-ship vessels of the subject vessel, the Haifa Maritime Court mentioned that it did not deny the pos - sibility of extending, under “judicial legislation”, the possibility of sister-ship arrest, leaving the path open for applying for such an arrest by using, for example, the legal principles of lifting the corporate veil. Charges paid at foreign ports also constitute the lien for general port charges In MV Mirage 1 , the Haifa Maritime Court held that the lien for “general port charges” included port charges paid by the agent (for the vessel) at a foreign port. Do pollution damages constitute the lien of “damage done by any ship”? Two matters of contamination damage caused to port decks and commercial losses due to the shut-down of a berth for the purpose of cleaning contamination were handled before the Haifa Maritime Court. The claimants asked the Court to apply the maritime lien of “any damage done by a ship”, according to Article 7 of the Admiralty Court Act 1861, referring to the Court’s mission of interpreting the Admiralty Court Acts of 1840 and 1861 in accordance with the modern world and applying the environmental principle of “the pol - luter pays”. The matters were recently settled.

299 CHAMBERS.COM