ISRAEL Trends and Developments Contributed by: Yoav Harris, John Harris (1940-2023) and Domiana Abboud, Harris & Co Maritime Law Office
Only the contractual supplier is recognised as a necessary lien In the matter of MV Emmanuel Tomasus (2012), it was held that only the contractual supplier was entitled to a maritime lien for the supply of nec - essaries, so the actual physical supplier was not entitled to recover its debt from the arrest and sale of the supplied vessel. In the matter ofMV Captain Hurry (2016), the supplier’s claim was denied due to the findings that the supplier’s commercial contracts were with the charterer of the vessel and not with the owners. Sister-ship arrests In the matter of MV Huriye Ana (2017), the Mar - itime Court held that Israeli law did not allow for a sister-ship arrest, as no such authority is mentioned either 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 Brussels Convention 1952 and the Geneva Convention 1999). In the matter of MV OSOGOVO (2021), while denying a supplier’s arrest application for neces - saries supplied to sister-ship vessels of the sub - ject vessel, the Haifa Maritime Court mentioned that it did not deny the possibility of extending, under “judicial legislation”, the possibility of sis - ter-ship arrest, leaving the path open for apply - ing 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 the matter of MV Mirage 1 , the Haifa Maritime Court held that the lien for “general port charg - es” included port charges paid by the agent (for the vessel) at a foreign port.
was facilitated after presenting the Haifa Mari - time Court with a full disclosure on the merits. A key aspect of this case was the reference to American law, which was the governing law per the supplier’s terms and conditions. Under American law, there is a presumption that char - terers and their agents have the authority to bind the vessel by ordering necessaries, unless there is an explicit notice from the owners stating oth - erwise. This principle was cited from the case of World Fuel Services v MV HEBEI SHIJUAH, and the arrest was ultimately granted. The fact that the arrest was granted under these circum - stances implies that the Haifa Maritime Court might accept arguments and arrest applications for unpaid necessaries ordered by a charterer. to conclude, although the Haifa Maritime Court’s approach is that a maritime lien requires owner’s liability, there is some flexibility in how such lia - bility is established, whether directly or through those acting on behalf of the owner. Not all maritime liens are uniform in nature, and some maritime liens might exist without the personal liability of the ship-owner. Enforcement of maritime lien for damage “done to goods” Recently, in the matter of Poliva v Ruby T, the Haifa Maritime Court held that the intended receiver of alleged damaged goods, who denied the goods and rejected the B/L (s) issued (and did not become their holder), has no title to sue for its commercial losses for the purchasing of substitute cargos. The Court dismissed the mari - time claim filed under the maritime lien for “dam - age done to the goods”. This decision has been appealed before the Supreme Court.
284 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook