ABSTRACT
I. Tout demandeur, qui se pre´vaut d’un droit ou d’une cre´ance maritime sur un navire, peut saisir ce navire ou tout autre appartenant aux meˆmes armateurs, alors meˆme que le navire serait preˆt a faire voile. (Any claimant who alleges that he has a maritime claim on a ship may arrest that ship or any other ship that is owned by the same operator even though the ship is ready to sail.)
8.03 The reference to ‘‘armateurs’’ (operator) in this paragraph was obviously a mistake, for in the following paragraph, which states when two ships must be deemed to be in the same ownership, the word used in ‘‘proprie´taire’’:
II. Des navires sont re´pute´s avoir la meˆme proprie´taire lorsque toutes les parts de proprie´te´ appartiennent a une meˆme ou aux meˆmes personnes. (Ships shall be deemed to be in the same ownership when all shares therein are owned by the same person or persons.)
8.04 During the Conference, the British delegate, explaining further an amendment suggested in the report of the British delegation,2 pointed out that the wording adopted in the draft could lead to unfair consequences. If, in order to establish which ships were in the same ownership, reference were made to the time of arrest, a shipowner who purchased a ship on which a maritime lien had arisen prior to the passing of title would be subject to the arrest not only of such ship, but also of all other ships owned by him.3 The proposal was carried and the reference to ‘‘sister ships’’ was worded as follows: ‘‘or any other ship which is owned by the person who was, at the time when the maritime claim arose, the owner of the particular ship’’.4
