The arrest of the ship may have far reaching consequences for the alleged debtor through interference with the immobilisation of the vessel after arrest. It provides the claimant of a maritime debt with a form of security, being the value of the debtor's interest in the ship and/or cargo. The right to arrest a ship is a far-reaching weapon not found in other aspects of the common law. First, the definitions of 'ship' and 'vessel' are inclusive and non-exhaustive. These definitions, which have had continuous existence in admiralty law in this jurisdiction from 1894, have two common features. The term vessel is defined in the same subsection as follows: '"Vessel" includes any ship or boat, or any other description of vessel used in navigation'. In s 13(2) of the 1989 Act 'ship' is defined as follows: '"Ship" includes every description of vessel used in navigation'. It follows from that provision that the jurisdiction to arrest is confined to a 'ship'. In obtaining the warrant for arrest, the plaintiffs rely upon s 13(2) of the 1989 Act which gives effect to the Arrest Convention 1952.Īrticle 2 of the Arrest Convention 1952 provides: 'A ship flying the flag of one of the Contracting States may be arrested in the jurisdiction of any of the contracting states in respect of any maritime claim'. When under tow from one contract site to another, the dredger is unmanned and plays no part in the performance of the operation. It does not have an ability to carry cargo, spoil or personnel other than those engaged in the dredging operation. It has a steel cabin fixed on the platform that contains an office and a toilet. It has a lighting tower to illuminate the deck and to warn passing vessels of its presence. One end is rounded to facilitate the operation of the dredger. It has no means of self-propulsion, mechanical or otherwise, and it has no wheelhouse. It has no bow, no stern, no anchors, no rudder or any means for steering, and no keel or skeg. When the legs are lowered to the seabed at the site of dredging the platform becomes a rigid structure and remains that way until the legs are withdrawn and the structure floats again. When in use, it is held in position on the seabed by three spud legs which are capable of being hydraulically lowered and raised. When not in operation, it is a floating platform comprising ten individual pontoons bolted together. This type of dredger is primarily used in harbours, channels or estuaries to deepen the waters at such locations. The Von Rocks is not a ship within the meaning of the 1989 Act and the Arrest Convention 1952. The issue before the Court was whether a backhoe dredger such as the Von Rocks was a ship for the purposes of s 13(2) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Maritime Conventions) Act 1989 (the 1989 Act) which gives effect in Ireland to the Arrest Convention 1952. The defendant challenged the validity of the arrest of the Von Rocks on the ground that it was not ship within the meaning of the relevant legislation. The Admiralty Marshal complied with this order and the Von Rocks was arrested, although it was permitted to continue to work on contract as a dredger. On 14 November 1996, the court directed the Admiralty Marshal to arrest the Von Rocks. While the Von Rocks was in Irish territorial waters, the plaintiffs sought an order for its arrest, and claimed that the court ought to assume jurisdiction pursuant to art 2 of the Arrest Convention 1952. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant failed to adequately prepare the Von Rocks for towage from Sweden to Scotland. Targe Towing Ltd and Scheldt Towage Company NV (the plaintiffs) made a claim against the owners of a backhoe dredger named the Von Rocks (the defendant) in negligence and breach of contract.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |