Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
Tychy case, the English Court of Appeal held that a slot charterer was within the expression ‘the charterer’ in s 21(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, whose other ships could be arrested as sister-ships. However, Article 23(2) of the MPL and Article 3(2) of the Arrest Convention 1999 do not specifically mention ‘slot charterer’, which has left a grey area to the courts for further clarification. The MPL does not spell out in detail the meaning of ‘owned by’, which apparently only refers to 100% ownership. The courts are unlikely to permit arrest of a ship that is joint-owned (Articles 10 and 16 of the Maritime Code) by a third party who is not at fault regarding the claim concerned. There are different views on arrest of a ship co-owned by a third party without fault, which have been left to the courts for further clarification. However, no clarification is needed in the case of cargo arrest. Shipowners will only be allowed to arrest of cargo that is owned by the charterer who has not paid for the hire or freight. This principle should be applied in the case of a sister-
DOI link for Tychy case, the English Court of Appeal held that a slot charterer was within the expression ‘the charterer’ in s 21(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, whose other ships could be arrested as sister-ships. However, Article 23(2) of the MPL and Article 3(2) of the Arrest Convention 1999 do not specifically mention ‘slot charterer’, which has left a grey area to the courts for further clarification. The MPL does not spell out in detail the meaning of ‘owned by’, which apparently only refers to 100% ownership. The courts are unlikely to permit arrest of a ship that is joint-owned (Articles 10 and 16 of the Maritime Code) by a third party who is not at fault regarding the claim concerned. There are different views on arrest of a ship co-owned by a third party without fault, which have been left to the courts for further clarification. However, no clarification is needed in the case of cargo arrest. Shipowners will only be allowed to arrest of cargo that is owned by the charterer who has not paid for the hire or freight. This principle should be applied in the case of a sister-
Tychy case, the English Court of Appeal held that a slot charterer was within the expression ‘the charterer’ in s 21(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, whose other ships could be arrested as sister-ships. However, Article 23(2) of the MPL and Article 3(2) of the Arrest Convention 1999 do not specifically mention ‘slot charterer’, which has left a grey area to the courts for further clarification. The MPL does not spell out in detail the meaning of ‘owned by’, which apparently only refers to 100% ownership. The courts are unlikely to permit arrest of a ship that is joint-owned (Articles 10 and 16 of the Maritime Code) by a third party who is not at fault regarding the claim concerned. There are different views on arrest of a ship co-owned by a third party without fault, which have been left to the courts for further clarification. However, no clarification is needed in the case of cargo arrest. Shipowners will only be allowed to arrest of cargo that is owned by the charterer who has not paid for the hire or freight. This principle should be applied in the case of a sister-
ABSTRACT