ISRAEL Law and Practice Contributed by: Joseph Sprinzak and Rahel Rimon, J.SPRINZAK
Courts Acts is fairly limited. Thus, in a recent case (In Rem File 31813-10-22 Vos Prince) the Israeli Admiralty Court held that prima facie a dispute over the validity of a sale agreement for a vessel does not fall within the Court’s jurisdiction to deal with causes for possession. 4.2 Maritime Liens The Shipping (Vessels) Law – 1960, Section 40 deals inter alia with debts to be secured by a first lien (on the vessel, freight and accessories). Sec - tion 41 lists the type of debts that are capable of being secured as a maritime lien and the order of priority amongst the liens. The Law does not expressly refer to the posi - tion under the Admiralty Courts Acts, although it does retain existing legislation concerning the creation or transfer of a mortgage or charge upon a vessel. It is accepted that the creation of these statutory liens also confers complemen - tary jurisdiction in rem on the Admiralty Court, but the Court has not yet dealt with the issue of the ranking of priorities in the event of a con - flict between the provisions of Section 41 of the Shipping (Vessels) Law and accepted principles of general admiralty law. In any event, Section 41 sets out the debts in the following order of priori - ties: expenses of judicial sale, pilotage and port fees, expenses of guarding and maintaining the vessel, Master and crew wages, salvage, per - sonal injury, collision and necessaries. It should be noted that Section 41(4) specifically provides for a statutory right in rem in respect of pay - ments claimed by the captain, crew or their sur - vivors, due to their employment on the vessel, according to a contract or as compensation for civil damages or in any other way. According to Section 53 of the Shipping (Ves - sels) Law – 1960, debts accumulated by a char - terer are dealt with in the same way as those
accumulated by an owner. More precisely, the Section states: “The provisions of this chapter shall apply also to a vessel operated by a char - terer or some other person who is not the owner thereof, unless he obtained the vessel unlaw- fully and the fact was known to the creditor”. Consequently, it is arguable, pursuant to Section 53, that debts created by a charterer during the period of a charterparty will vest a maritime lien, or at minimum a statutory action in rem, against the vessel. However, this matter has not yet been decided by the highest instance in Israel. With regard to foreign maritime liens, it should be noted that the Israeli Admiralty Court will look at the proper law of the claim in order to determine the validity of a lien. 4.3 Liability in Personam for Owners or Demise Charterers The Admiralty Court has concurrent jurisdic - tion in rem and in personam. While there is no statutory requirement that owners be personally liable in order for a right in rem to arise, recent case law suggests that the Admiralty Court will not enforce a maritime lien in the absence of personal liability on the part of the owner (ALA 851/99 M/V Ellen Hudig (2004)). Similarly, in CF 45897-02-12 M/V Emmanuel Tomasos (2014) the actual bunker supplier’s claim was denied on the ground that only the contractual supplier who had contracted with the owners could be a creditor under the necessaries lien. Likewise, in AF 24399-05-15 M/V Nissos Rodos (2016), it was held that the local agent who had been nominated by the operator of the vessel, and paid the port dues for the numerous calls of the vessel at Haifa Port, was not entitled to enforce a maritime lien for “port dues of any kind… paid by a third party” on the ground that the agent had no agreement with the owners such that
271 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook