Member Vetting Process
Log In
About
Members
News
Awards
Contact
Member Vetting Process
Log In
Log In
Member Search
Specialism
Law Firm
Advisory Firm
Country
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Angola
Anguilla
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
Aruba
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belgium
Belize
Bermuda
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
British Virgin Islands
Bulgaria
Cameroon
Canada
Cayman Islands
Chile
China
Colombia
Congo (Dem. Rep.)
Costa Rica
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominican Republic
Egypt
El Salvador
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Ghana
Gibraltar
Greece
Guatemala
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jersey
Kenya
Korea (South)
Kosovo
Kuwait
Lebanon
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Macau
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malaysia
Malta
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Monaco
Morocco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Norway
Pakistan
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Republic of Ireland
Romania
Russia
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia
Seychelles
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Africa
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turks and Caicos Islands
UAE
Uganda
UK
Ukraine
Uruguay
USA
Vietnam
Zimbabwe
Practice Area
Abuse of Dominance
Accountancy
Accounting and Tax
Acquisition Finance
Administrative
Admiralty
Agribusiness
AI
Alternative Asset Management
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Alternative Finance
Arbitration
Art
Asset Protection
Asset Protection Structures
Audit & Assurance
Audit & Finance
Audit and Accounting Services
Audit and Administration
Aviation
Banking & Finance
Banking Litigation
Bankruptcy
Broker Risk Management
Business
Business Formation
Business Immigration
Capital Markets
Citizenship
Citizenship by Descent
Civil
Civil Litigation
Civil Rights
Commercial
Commercial Arbitration
Commercial Contracts
Commercial Leasing
Commercial Litigation
Commercial Litigation
Commercial Property
Commercial Real Estate
Commercial Tenancy
Commodities Trading
Commodity Disputes
Company
Company & Fund Administration
Company Formation
Competition
Compliance
Compliance & Regulatory
Construction
Contentious Probate
Contract
Contractual Disputes
Copyright
Corporate
Corporate Accountant & VAT
Corporate Criminal
Corporate Finance
Corporate Governance
Corporate Immigration
Corporate Investment
Corporate Restructuring
Corporate Risk Management
Corporate Services
Corporate Support Services
Corporate Tax
Costs
Criminal
Criminal Defence
Criminal Fraud
Cross Border Estates
Cross-Border
Cross-Border Transactions
Cultural Property
Customs Advisory
Data & Innovation
Data Privacy
Data Protection
Debt Collection
Debt Recovery
Defence & Security Procurement
Digital Transformation Consultancy
Dispute Resolution
Divorce
Domestic & International Tax
Due Diligence
Economic Criminal
Employee Benefits
Employment
Employment Litigation
Energy
Energy & Natural Resources
Environmental
ERISA & Employment Benefits
Estate Planning
European
Expert Witness Property Valuation
Family
Fiduciary
Financial Services
Financial Services & Regulatory
Financial Transactions
FinTech
Fiscal
Foreign Direct Investments
Foreign Investments
Franchise
Fraud
Full Service
Fund Administration
Gaming
Health & Safety
Healthcare
Healthcare M&A
Hedge Funds
Human Rights & Labour Rights
Immigration
India Desk
Industrial Relations
Information Technology
Infrastructure
Inheritance
Insolvency
Insurance
Insurance & Reinsurance
Insurance Litigation
Intellectual Property
International Arbitration
International Business
International Corporate
International Debt Collection
International Dispute Resolution
International Employment
International Franchise
International Fraud
International Litigation
International Private
International Real Estate
International Succession
International Tax
International Tax Planning
International Trade
International Trade & National Security
Investigations
Investment
IP Litigation
IT
IT Services
Joint Ventures
Labour & Employment
Leasehold Enfranchisement
Legal Malpractice
Legal Risk Management
Life Science Patent
Life Sciences
Litigation
Litigation & Arbitration
M&A
Maritime
Maritime Arbitration
Matrimonial
Media & Entertainment
Mediation
Mediation & Arbitration
Medical Malpractice
Mining
Neuroradiology Expert Witness
New Technologies
Oil & Gas
Orthopaedic Expert Witness
Patent Litigation
Patent Prosecution
Patents
Payroll Accounting
Personal Injury
Personal Injury - Plaintiff
Pharmaceutical Sector Patents
Pharmaceuticals & Life Sciences
Private Client
Private Equity
Private Funds
Probate & Inheritance
Products
Project
Project Finance
Property Valuation
Public Procurement
Real Estate
Real Estate - Property
Regulatory
Regulatory & Compliance
Renewable Energy
Restructuring
SaaS/PaaS
Securities
Securities Litigation
Shipping & Admiralty
Shipping & Maritime
Shipping Finance
Sports
Start Up
Succession
Tax
Tax Litigation
Tax Planning
Tax Relocation
Tax Services
Tax Structures
Technology
Telecommunications
TMT
Trademark
Transaction
Transfer Pricing
Transportation
Trust & Estates
Trust Administration
Venture Capital
Wealth & Estate Planning
Wealth Management
Wealth Planning
Whistleblower
White Collar Crime
Wills, Trusts & Estate Planning
Workers Compensation
Workplace Law & Investigations
Hong Kong – Arresting Ships To Enforce A Maritime Arbitration Award: A Welcome Clarification
Published: Friday, October 31, 2014
The right to arrest a ship as security for a maritime claim is an extremely valuable right, which has a long history dating back to the time of King Edward III. It does not however extend to include the enforcement of maritime arbitration awards, even if the original claim giving rise to the Award is itself one that falls under the admiralty jurisdiction of the Court (The Bumbesti [2000] QB 559 and The Chong Bong [1997] 3 HKC 570). But does this mean that a plaintiff’s right to arrest a defendant’s ship will be extinguished once an Award is issued? Is a plaintiff’s right to arrest a defendant’s vessel only available pre-Award or pre-Judgment, but not post-Award or post-Judgment? These were questions that Justice Peter Ng, Judge of the Admiralty List in Hong Kong, had to answer in a recent Hong Kong decision of the The Alas [2014] 4 HKLRD 160.1
In The Alas, the plaintiff owners had time-chartered their vessel MT Beth to the defendant charterers for a period of 5 years on the terms of a Shelltime 4 Form. Following the notorious freight and commodities markets crash in 2008, the defendant charterers defaulted on their hire payments to the plaintiff owners. With no prospect of future payment from the defendant charterers, the plaintiff owners terminated the charter and withdrew the MT Beth from service. The plaintiff owners then promptly commenced LMAA arbitration against the defendant charterers, and caused in rem Writs to be issued against the defendant charterers’ vessels in Hong Kong (with a view of arresting, so as to obtain security on the plaintiff owner’s claims). The Writs were carefully drafted so as not to refer to any arbitration proceedings in respect of the underlying claim.
While proceedings in the LMAA arbitration had taken some 3 to 4 years before a Final
Award was eventually published by the tribunal in March 2013, there was in the meantime no reasonable opportunity for the plaintiff owners to arrest the defendant charterer’s vessels as security for its claims. It was not until about one year after the Final Award was published by the Tribunal that the defendant’s ship, MV Dewi Umayi, sailed into Hong Kong on 26 April 2014, where she was promptly arrested by the plaintiff owners.
In the affidavit leading arrest, lawyers for the plaintiff owners (mindful of the principles
stated in the decisions of The Bumbesti and The Chong Bong) made it clear that the plaintiff owners were not seeking to arrest so as to obtain security for and/or to enforce on the Final Award published by the Tribunal, but were arresting as security for the plaintiff owner’s original claims under the time charter (independent from the Award), in the in rem court proceedings.
The defendant charterers moved swiftly in applying to set aside the arrest, arguing that once an arbitration award was issued, the plaintiff owner’s original claims under the charterparty are extinguished, and the plaintiff owners were only entitled to sue on the arbitration award. It was further argued on behalf of the defendant charterers that the right of arrest (to obtain security) was only a right available pre-Award or pre-Judgment, but not after an award or judgment has been issued.
The Honourable Justice Peter Ng disagreed with the submissions of the defendant charterers. The Court held that the plaintiff owners were entitled to pursue their original claims in the in rem proceedings, even if an arbitration award was already published by the tribunal (so long as, and to the extent, that the arbitral award remains unsatisfied). On the defendant charterers’ argument that the right of arrest was only available pre-Award or pre-Judgment, the Court expressed the view that it would be “extremely odd that the right of security by the arrest of a vessel is available to a plaintiff who merely asserts a claim whereas it is lost when he finally obtains a judgment in the action”.
This decision given by the Honourable Justice Peter Ng is a sound decision in principle. It cannot be mere fortuity that a maritime plaintiff’s right to arrest a vessel is extinguished once a Tribunal publishes its’ Award, especially since a plaintiff has no control over (i) when a Tribunal publishes its’ Award; and (ii) when the defendant’s ship will sail into a jurisdiction where the plaintiff may arrest her.
This decision in the The Alas provides a welcome clarification, and facilitates the enforcement of maritime arbitration awards. Facts that have already been decided by the tribunal can give rise to issue estoppel in the in rem proceedings, such that “summary” judgment may be quickly obtained by the plaintiff in the in rem court proceedings (without having to go through a full trial).
A practical and useful reminder for a plaintiff who has successfully obtained a maritime arbitration award in his favour, is as follows: when drafting the Indorsement of Claim in a
Writ and in the affidavit leading arrest, a plaintiff ought to refer to the claim as being one based on the original underlying in rem cause of action (that falls under the Court’s Admiralty jurisdiction), and not to a claim that is based on the Award issued by the tribunal.
The defendant charterers have recently applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, but this was refused by the first instance Judge. A subsequent direct application to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal was also declined. The Court of Appeal’s reasoned judgment for denying leave has not yet been handed down at the time of writing, though it should be available in the coming months.
End Notes:
1 Reported in Lloyds Law Reporter (11 August 2014), also available online at
http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/2014/1281.html
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Damien Laracy
Laracy & Co
Country:
Hong Kong
Practice Area:
Shipping & Maritime
Website:
www.laracyco.com
Phone Number:
+852 2525 7525
Email:
damienlaracy@laracyco.com
Fax:
+852 2525 7526
Damien specialises in commercial litigation and international arbitration. His day to day practice involves a wide variety of contractual claims, complex cross border debt recovery and damages claims, international trade and sale of goods disputes, shareholders and joint venture disputes, and enforcement of Judgments and Awards in the PRC and in Hong Kong. Damien also has significant experience with ship mortgage enforcement work, and with pursuing claims In Rem on behalf of unsecured parties. The firm is currently advising a venture capital fund in connection with recovery of its investment in corporate bonds by way of enforcement against shipping assets / vessels owned by a financially ailing issuer. Damien's team regularly advices in relation to in team relief applications and when necessary liaises with lawyers in other jurisdictions to achieve a coordinated outcome and to maximise client benefit. The firm's arbitration practice requires Damien to advise in relation to drafting and construction of arbitration references, and enforcement of Awards in the PRC and in Hong Kong. Damien is on the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre Panel of Arbitrators and sits as an arbitrator. Laracy & Co. services a diverse range of institutional, corporate, and private clients, both in Hong Kong/ Greater China and globally. In addition to our recognised expertise in the areas of commercial litigation, international arbitration, contentious shipping and intellectual property, the firm also has strengths in the areas of general commercial practice and employment related disputes.
View Profile
Member Introduction
Harold Kestenbaum
Harold L. Kestenbaum, PC
New York, USA
View Profile
Atiq Ahmed
Atiq R. Ahmed, P. A.
Washington DC, USA
View Profile
Ruben Flores
FGA Attorneys & Advisors
Texas, USA
View Profile
Robert Kaplan
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
New York, USA
View Profile
The Lawyer Network in numbers
0
+
Members Firms
0
+
Countries
0
+
Practice Areas
0
+
Member Firms
Total Staff