ISRAEL Trends and Developments Contributed by: Yoav Harris, John Harris (1940-2023) and Domiana Abboud, Harris & Co Maritime Law Office
Do pollution damages constitute the lien of “damage done by any ship”? Currently, two matters of contamination damag - es caused to port decks and commercial losses resulting from oil leaking from polluting vessels are pending before the Haifa Maritime Court. The claimants are seeking for court authorities and remedies under the maritime lien of “any dam - age done by any ship” in Article 7 of the Admi - ralty Court Act 1861, enacted when vessels navi - gated with the power of steam and referring to the Court’s mission of interpreting the Admiralty Court Acts of 1840 and 1861 in accordance with the modern world – as was done, for example, when including bunkering under the necessar - ies’ lien provided in the Admiralty Court Act of 1840 (MV Zim Sao Paolo, Israel Ports Company v Moraz Shipping LLC). Registration In the matter of MV BADR (2022), the Haifa Mari - time Court accepted the owner’s claim and held that a vessel registered in Libya cannot be reg - istered under Israeli registration too, and ordered the cancellation of the Israeli registration of the vessel done ex parte, without the consent of the owners (a Libyan government’s 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 to 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 differ - ent matter), is that customary international law is incorporated into Israeli law insofar as there is no contradiction between the two.
Mortgage In the matter of Vapi Kredi Banaksi v MV Hur - riye Ana (2020), the Haifa Maritime Court denied a bank’s claim to enforce a mortgage that was written in the vessel’s registration. The Court held that the validity of the loan agreement was not proven, and that no information was pro - vided in relation to the payment schedule agreed with the debtor (which was not the owners) or the exact amount of remaining debt. The fact that a mortgage is written in the vessel’s registra - tion is not enough to have it enforced. 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 Bill of Lading (B/L) that governs the sea carriage of cargo either 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 quantities stated in the B/L are prima facia evidence, not only towards the owners but also towards the underwriter insuring the car - go (which was carried under the B/L) in marine insurance. In civil appeal 7195/18 Fhya v Millobar (2018), the Supreme Court held that if a claim filed within one year after the discharge of the cargo was filed by a claimant that had no title to sue, the one-year time limit (of Article III (6) of the Hague- Visby Rules) will not be “cut” (stopped). Conse - quently, amending the claim to add a new claim - ant with the title to sue after the one-year period is not permissible if the claim of the additional claimant is already time-barred. In the matter of MV Chrysopigi, the Haifa mari - time judge, the honourable R Sokol, held that
285 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook