Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
claim should not be encouraged in order to prevent a ship from being repeatedly arrested in one port after another. Further, it has long been established in other jurisdictions that the security represents the ship; the ship being thereby released, and which cannot be re-arrested for the same cause of action. Lastly, re-arrest and multiple arrest of ships are not permissible under the 1952 Convention. The MPL (Article 24) therefore adopted the principle that a ship cannot be re-arrested in respect of the same maritime claim where the ship has been arrested and released. In line with the stand of the Arrest Convention 1999, the MPL allows exceptions to this general principle. First, where the nature or amount of the security provided is inadequate (Article 24(1)). Secondly, where the person who has provided the security is unlikely to be able to fulfil some or all of his obligations (Article 24(2)). Lastly, where the ship arrested or the security previously provided was released either with the consent of the claimant acting on reasonable grounds; or because the claimant could not, by taking reasonable steps, prevent the release (Article 24(3)). It is understood that the initial amount should be considered ‘inadequate’ only where it was calculated erroneously or based on wrong information. Normal deviation cannot be regarded as ‘inadequate’ for re-arrest. These provisions are principally in line with Article 5(1) of the Arrest Convention 1999, which has its roots in English law. However, in The Hero, an English
DOI link for claim should not be encouraged in order to prevent a ship from being repeatedly arrested in one port after another. Further, it has long been established in other jurisdictions that the security represents the ship; the ship being thereby released, and which cannot be re-arrested for the same cause of action. Lastly, re-arrest and multiple arrest of ships are not permissible under the 1952 Convention. The MPL (Article 24) therefore adopted the principle that a ship cannot be re-arrested in respect of the same maritime claim where the ship has been arrested and released. In line with the stand of the Arrest Convention 1999, the MPL allows exceptions to this general principle. First, where the nature or amount of the security provided is inadequate (Article 24(1)). Secondly, where the person who has provided the security is unlikely to be able to fulfil some or all of his obligations (Article 24(2)). Lastly, where the ship arrested or the security previously provided was released either with the consent of the claimant acting on reasonable grounds; or because the claimant could not, by taking reasonable steps, prevent the release (Article 24(3)). It is understood that the initial amount should be considered ‘inadequate’ only where it was calculated erroneously or based on wrong information. Normal deviation cannot be regarded as ‘inadequate’ for re-arrest. These provisions are principally in line with Article 5(1) of the Arrest Convention 1999, which has its roots in English law. However, in The Hero, an English
claim should not be encouraged in order to prevent a ship from being repeatedly arrested in one port after another. Further, it has long been established in other jurisdictions that the security represents the ship; the ship being thereby released, and which cannot be re-arrested for the same cause of action. Lastly, re-arrest and multiple arrest of ships are not permissible under the 1952 Convention. The MPL (Article 24) therefore adopted the principle that a ship cannot be re-arrested in respect of the same maritime claim where the ship has been arrested and released. In line with the stand of the Arrest Convention 1999, the MPL allows exceptions to this general principle. First, where the nature or amount of the security provided is inadequate (Article 24(1)). Secondly, where the person who has provided the security is unlikely to be able to fulfil some or all of his obligations (Article 24(2)). Lastly, where the ship arrested or the security previously provided was released either with the consent of the claimant acting on reasonable grounds; or because the claimant could not, by taking reasonable steps, prevent the release (Article 24(3)). It is understood that the initial amount should be considered ‘inadequate’ only where it was calculated erroneously or based on wrong information. Normal deviation cannot be regarded as ‘inadequate’ for re-arrest. These provisions are principally in line with Article 5(1) of the Arrest Convention 1999, which has its roots in English law. However, in The Hero, an English
ABSTRACT
claim should not be encouraged in order to prevent a ship from being repeatedly arrested in one port after another. Further, it has long been established in other jurisdictions69 that the security represents the ship; the ship being thereby released, and which cannot be re-arrested for the same cause of action. Lastly, re-arrest and multiple arrest of ships are not permissible under the 1952 Convention. The MPL (Article 24) therefore adopted the principle that a ship cannot be re-arrested in respect of the same maritime claim where the ship has been arrested and released.
