ISRAEL Trends and Developments Contributed by: Yoav Harris, John Harris (1940-2023) and Domiana Abboud, Harris & Co Maritime Law Office
Harris & Co Maritime Law Office 16 Pal-Yam St, 5th Fl Haifa 330952 Israel
Tel: +972 54 420 2951 Fax: +927 04 874 4040 Email: yoavh@maritime-law.co.il Web: www.lawships.com
The Haifa Maritime Court The sets of rules governing the Maritime Court’s authority Israeli Maritime Law is in fact a legacy of the Brit - ish Mandate for Palestine, which was officially valid from 1923 to 1948. By a King’s Order-in- Council dated 2 February 1937, the Supreme Court of Jerusalem was constituted as a Mari - time Court under the Colonial Courts of Admiral - ty Act, 1890 (the “Colonial Act”). On the date the Colonial Act was enacted, the most relevant acts of admiralty in force were the Admiralty Court Acts of 1840 and 1861. These continue to apply to the Israeli Haifa Maritime Court’s jurisdiction. Clause 2 (2) of the Colonial Act empowers the jurisdiction of a Colonial Court of Admiralty with the jurisdiction over “the like persons, matters and things as the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court in England whether existing by vir - tue of any statue or otherwise, and the Colonial Court of Admiralty may exercise such jurisdic - tion in like manner and to as full an extent as the High Court in England, and shall have the same regard as that Court to international law and the comity of nations”. In accordance with these provisions, and following the transfer of powers from the Supreme Court, when exer - cising its jurisdiction over maritime claims and matters, the Haifa Maritime Court can apply its
civil and other powers as a District Court under Israeli law. When enacting the Israeli Shipping Act of 1960, the Israeli legislature included specific chapters on mortgages and liens, adopting the continen - tal lien regime of the Brussels Convention of 1926 and preferring this regime over English law. Therefore, the Israeli Maritime Court (namely, the Haifa District Court) has two sets of rules related to maritime liens. A maritime lien is a substantive right The main Supreme Court judgment relating to maritime liens was rendered in the matter of MV Nadia S. The Court held that a maritime lien is a substantive right rather than a procedural right (and in this regard diverged from the majority opinion in the English judgment in the matter of the Halcyon Isle), attaching to the ship and following the res into the hands of third parties, and is determined according to the lex causae. The requirement for owner’s liability The concept of a maritime lien can be described metaphorically to emphasise its unique nature. It can be said to “spring into existence the moment the circumstances give birth to it” (Thomas, “Maritime Liens”, 1980, page 1) and like an unseen demon attaches itself to the res
282 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook