ABSTRACT
Whilst it has been said by a number of judges that the word ‘‘owner’’ in the 1952 Arrest Convention can be read as equated with registered owner (see Lord Donaldson of Lymington MR in The ‘‘Evpo Agnic’’ and Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ in Haji-Ioannou v Frangos at 353), we agree with Professor Berlingieri that art. 3(1) is not limited to registered owner and it is within the intent of the 1952 Arrest Convention to extend the concept of owner beyond registered owner: Berlingieri op. cit. p. 115. Certainly, arts 3, 4 and 9 deal with notions of ownership: see especially art. 3(2).
