ISRAEL Trends and Developments Contributed by: Yoav Harris, John Harris (1940-2023) and Domiana Abboud, Harris & Co Maritime Law Office
and creates a “subtraction from the interest of the owners” (Thomas, page 23, citing The Tera - vate (1922), using the words of The Ripon City (1897). This lien remains invisible to owners and other creditors, maintaining a silent hold over the vessel until it manifests in a legal process, typi - cally through a claim in rem that “relates back to the period when it first attached” (The Bold Buccleugh, 1851). The question of whether a maritime lien requires an owner’s personal liability seems to be viewed differently by European civil admiralty law (root - ed in Rhodian Sea Law, Roles (Rules) of Oleron, Consolato del Mare Laws of Visby and the Ordonnance de La Marine of 1861) and by Eng - lish common law, which imported the concept of a maritime lien through the Doctors’ Commons. While under English law “a proper maritime lien must have its root in personal liability of the own - er” (The Castlegate (1893)), no such requirement appears in the European maritime lien regime, at least according to the Brussels Convention of 1926, which, as mentioned, was adopted by the Israeli legislature. However, in the matter of MV Ellen Hudig (2004), the Haifa Maritime Court denied a maritime lien for “indemnities for loss of or damage to the cargo or baggage”. This was because alleged damages to the cargo (which were addition - al expenses related to its discharge from the arrested vessel in Haifa and additional freight paid to another vessel to complete its intended voyage to Singapore) resulted from the vessel’s arrest due to a claim filed by the crew for unpaid wages and the owners’ subsequent appearance before a Belgian court under bankruptcy pro - ceedings within the following ten days, therefore (according to the court’s view) not falling under the owners’ personal liability.
Ever since, the Ellen Hudig matter has been cit - ed by the Haifa Maritime Court as an authority establishing the need to show owners’ liability in order to recognise a maritime lien. Accordingly, in the matter of MV Nissos Rodos (2016), the Maritime Court cited MV Ellen Hudig, in so far as the local ship agent was not entitled to a maritime lien for port dues paid by the agent for the vessel, during its calls at Haifa Port. In the matter of MV Captain Hurry (2016), the Haifa Maritime Court dismissed a bunker sup - plier’s claim due to res judicata, following a Ger - man declaratory judgment that declared that all contractual relations took place between the bunker supplier and the charterers only (and not with the owner). Accordingly, no liability was imposed on the owners towards the bunker sup - plier. The Haifa Maritime Court also mentioned that the maritime liens differed from each other, whereby some were intended to secure voluntar - ily liabilities and others to secure liabilities under law. In the matter of Moraz Shipping, while denying the owners’ application for establishing a limita - tion (according to the Brussels Convention of 1957), the Maritime Court cited the above-men - tioned Captain Hurry matter as authority that in rem proceedings can be taken against a ves - sel regardless of the owner’s liability because, for enforcing these, it is enough that those who were authorised to obligate the vessel were the ones who caused the damage. In the matter of MV HUA YANG MEU GUI, a suc - cessful arrest of the vessel was achieved due to unpaid bunker dues. These bunkers were sup - plied while the vessel was under charter, and the charterers were liable for ordering and paying for the bunkers per the charterparty. This arrest
283 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook