Admiralty Law Basic PDF

Takeaways Admiralty practice involves understanding Admiralty jurisdiction, maritime claims, and security for claims The High Court Admiralty Jurisdiction Act defines maritime claims and provides the basis for obtaining security Challenging an arrest can be done through jurisdictional disputes, n...

Takeaways Admiralty practice involves understanding Admiralty jurisdiction, maritime claims, and security for claims The High Court Admiralty Jurisdiction Act defines maritime claims and provides the basis for obtaining security Challenging an arrest can be done through jurisdictional disputes, non-disclosure, or proving wrongful arrest Valid claims require satisfying the relevant sections of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Act Different forms of security, such as bank guarantees or letters of undertaking, can be demanded for the release of a ship Andrew Yip (00:10.042) My name is Leong Kar Wah. I\'m from Rajah and Tham, and I\'m in charge of this particular aspect. I\'m also joined by Mohammad Hayris. He\'s my deputy, and both of us have always been handling Admiralty practice for Part B. But that was when it was an elective. But now, it has been incorporated as part of corporate practice. I know there has been a lot of anxiety as to what is expected of you. Are we going to examine you and have expectations of you as if you have studied at Meroti in university or we\'re trying to train you to become an admiralty practitioner, no, that is not the purpose of this part of the curriculum. The purpose really is that to expose you, right, to understand that at least there is this area, because if you study civil procedure, right, you know all the rules, but there is order 33, previously known as order 70. Right, and then this part is to give you a very brief introduction. It\'s like Admiralty 101. So you will see when I run through today\'s session, what I propose to do, and let me start sharing my screen, is to a brief lecture. Andrew Yip (02:02.452) And from this brief lecture, this is what I\'m going to go through with Let me see if you can see my. Andrew Yip (02:21.934) Alright, this is what I propose to do in today\'s session. Of course, you will have questions and you\'re free to ask questions throughout or even at the appropriate time. So I will talk about the Act, Admiralty Jurisdiction. The Act mainly is Section 3 and Section 4 of the Act. I will talk about what are the common maritime claims, I will talk about security and a little bit about challenging the arrest. And I think this is what most of you are keen on. How is the exams going to look like? And I will go through a few mock exam questions, right? So that you can understand the emphasis, right? The depth as well as a sparring session going on yourself to try out these questions. I think Section 3, if you look at the Act, is a very thin Act, the High Court Admiralty Jurisdiction Act. Section 3 is the one that defines what are maritime claims. So when we talk about maritime claims, the reason why this is defined and covered by the High Court Admiralty Jurisdiction Act is that it gives you the additional feature of getting security for your claim, the full judgment. In all civil cases, you will realize that you are unable to get security for your claim. Whereas if your claim falls within an Admiralty jurisdiction or a maritime claim as we commonly know it to be, you will be able to get security. Andrew Yip (04:26.956) Now, how does security work? Security works in a sense that you at the start of the action are able to either a bank guarantee or a reputable club letter or some payment into court as security for your claim. You don\'t have to wait two years, three years for your civil action to be decided and then realise that it could well turn out to be a paper judgement. Now for Admiralty jurisdiction, you can arrest the ship or in place of arresting the ship, you can demand for security. Now that is the importance of this feature, getting security. Not all claims allow you to get security. These are the common ones. \[s3(1)(a) -- (r) AJA\] We are looking at a mortgage at C. Now D, damage done by a ship. It can be two ships colliding, so there\'s damages on both ships. it could also be damage done by a ship in a sense that your cargo was on ship A and then ship B collides into ship A. So cargo on ship A can also claim that they have suffered damage due to damage done by ship B. So that\'s damage done by a ship, collision damage, cargo damage. F, loss of life, personal injury, onboard ships. loss damage to goods carried in a ship. So that can come under G, which is what we commonly call a cargo claim, or that can also come under H, claim arising out of any agreement for carriage of goods used or hire a ship. Both are used interchangeably. L, goods and materials supplied for ship\'s operation and maintenance, meaning if you have fuel oil, we call it bunkers, Andrew Yip (06:31.466) If these are supplied for the ship\'s operation and maintenance, and also sometimes your supplies, right, water, food, right, these are what we call necessaries. So necessaries supplied for the ship\'s operation and maintenance, can get a maritime claim. Ship repairs under N crew wages, and O agents disbursements. These are the most common ones that you have to know. Now, there are a few types of liens. Statutory liens as well as maritime liens, and also processory liens. These are common lingos that are used to define Admiralty or maritime claims. So first, we talk about a statutory lien. A statutory lien basically means that if you are able to fulfill Section 3 and Section 4 then you will have a maritime claim and you can issue a writ and upon issuance of the writ, you will create a Statutory Lian. That is how a Statutory Lian is created, meaning a Statutory Lian only comes about after you have issued a writ or an originating claim as we call it today. The effect of this is that it stops the time from running because you\'ve started the legal action. So time bar is now protected. And it also stops the claim from being defeated if there\'s a change of ownership. We will go into that a bit later, but let\'s just go on the basis that once you have issued the writ, the statutory lien is crystallized. It helps. against time bar, it helps against an ownership change. Now maritime liens, the maritime liens, the common ones, it\'s a common law creature. So if you have a maritime lien, if you look at the textbooks, just look at the Token Singh\'s book, he will define that these are the common maritime liens, which means that you have an additional facet of your claim, which is you are given the status of a maritime lien. Andrew Yip (08:59.736) So the most common ones are here again, salvage, collision damage, master, as well as crew wages. How is it created? Now, once the claim has accrued, meaning once there\'s a collision between two ships and damage has suffered, immediately there\'s a maritime lien. You don\'t need to issue a writ to crystallize the maritime lien. It\'s already there. And once you have a maritime lien, A maritime lien is not defeated by a change of ownership. That is again a feature of your claim being protected by a maritime lien. That\'s all you need to know for the purposes of this aspect of the course. A processory lien is when certain claimants are given a status. The most common one is a ship repairer. A ship repairer has a processory lien if it remains in possession of the ship that it has repaired, and it has repaired the ship and improved the ship. That\'s how a processory lien comes about. Andrew Yip (10:13.046) If you look at section four now, I\'m sure those of you who have had a chance to look at section four knows that it is really quite a handful. A short maybe three or four provisions, in fact four provisions, but it is a handful. Let\'s just go one by one, step by So if you look at section 4, what are the features of section 4? It says here at section 4.2. Let\'s look at section 4.2. If I may read section 4.2 to you, the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court may, in the cases mentioned in 3.1a, b, c, and r, be invoked by an action in rem against the or property in question. There\'s Section 4.2. Now, what does it mean? If you look back to Section 3.1, the most common one there is the mortgage, which is Section 3.1c. If there is a ship mortgage, Section 4.2 that I\'ve just read, Admiralty jurisdiction can be invoked by an action in rem against the ship that was charged with the mortgage. Quite straightforward. That\'s how you don\'t have to satisfy any other provision in Section 4 except Section 4 -2. So Section 4 -2, the most common one read in Section 3 -1C, that is one claim and that is how one claim may be invoked as a mortgage. Then it goes on. Section 4 -3, Let me read that to you. In any case in which there is a maritime lien or other charge on any ship for the amount claimed, the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court may be invoked by an action in rem against that ship. So this means that if you have a common law maritime lien, which is what I have said, if there\'s a collision damage between two ships, Andrew Yip (12:44.398) So section 43 comes in and you can have an in -RAM action against that ship. A collides with B, A has a claim against B, and A can rely on 43 to start an action in REM with a maritime lien against the ship. I think that\'s hopefully quite clear to everybody. Now section\... 44 is where there would be some acrobatics. Please bear with me. Section 44 is applicable from Section 31D to Section 31Q. So let\'s just go with a simple example of a cargo claim on board a A cargo claim on board a ship I told you is Section 3.1g Claim for loss of or damage to goods carried in a ship Now, so that is Section 3.1g Now you have to read that with the rest of the Section 4 to invoke the jurisdiction How does that work? So Section 3.1g Cargo claim on ship A Now, 44A says that the claim arises in connection with a ship. So this is cargo damage on ship A. So the claim arises in connection with a ship. So that\'s satisfied. 44B, at the time when the cause of action arose, right, was the person who would be liable in personam, the owner, charterer or person in possession or control of the ship. Now, this means that you need to ask yourself, when the time the cargo damage occurred, who is responsible? Okay, let\'s say the person responsible is company X. And company X, you have to ask the next question. Andrew Yip (15:07.566) Is Company X the owner or a charterer or a person in possession or control of the ship? The cargo is carried on board ship A owned by Company X. So Company X is the person who will be responsible for the cargo damage and Company X is the owner of the ship. So 4 -4 -B satisfied. Then we move on. Now, 4 -4 -C says that you can have an action, you can bring that action against the ship. Now, the ship now has a different time because just now at 4 -4 -B, we talking about the time when the cause of action arose, which is when the damage occurred. And 4 -4 -C talks about when the action is brought. So when the action is brought is when the writ is filed, or the arrest is done concurrently with the filing of the writ. Now that is the time of reckoning to say that is this particular ship that you\'re bringing the action against, is that person, company X, the owner, the beneficial owner, or the mischartner of that ship, or Under 44D is the ship that you\'re targeting, also owned by that same relevant person at the time the action is brought. I know this is a bit of a mouthful, and it\'s quite a handful. going by the number of cases that we have in our high court jurisprudence, you can see that this is where a lot of lawyers are tripped up. Let me try and tell you how it works in the form of an example which we have already seen in my introduction lecture. Andrew Yip (17:14.304) Let\'s look at this example. will go through with you. Cargo is carried on board a Mabel, and ship is owned by Mabel Shipping Limited. Now the cargo is damaged in January. Cargo owners wish to arrest the ship Mabel in September. Scenario A, in September, Mabel is still owned by Mabel Shipping. Let me run through how section 3 and section 4 works. Section 3, I told you 1G, loss or damage to goods carried in a ship. Andrew Yip (18:04.142) So the claim arises in connection with the ship under 4 -4A, which is quite clear. It was damaged with the ship Mabel. B, at a time the cause of action arose, the person who would be liable in personam is the owner or charterer or person in possession or control of the ship. So we say that in January, right, when the cargo was damaged, the ship was owned by Mabel shipping. So Mabel shipping is the person that is liable in personam in January. Now, we say look further down, right, under section 44, this will be C, an action may be brought against that ship if at the time the action is brought, the relevant person is the beneficial owner or the demise charterer of that Quite clear, September, Mabel is still owned by Mabel Shipping. So all boxes are checked and Mabel can be arrested by the cargo owners in September. That is the plainness of plain vanilla in how Section 3 and Section 4 works. I hope that is quite clear to everyone. Let\'s move on. Mabel is sold. to Helen Shipping and renamed Helen in July. Now, this is where there is a factual twist. If you go back, where\'s the problem? The problem really is a sale preceding the arrest in September, which means that every box is checked except for 4C. Because at the time the action is brought in September, the relevant person has to be the beneficial owner of that ship. We see here, Mabel has been sold. So Mabel shipping no longer owns Mabel in September. So there\'s a change of ownership. And because of this change of ownership \[before arrest\], you cannot satisfy Section 4 -4C. Andrew Yip (20:29.314) That is the problem. You can see how Section 44C is unable to be satisfied in Scenario B. I hope you understand that factual twist because that is the case when you have a change of ownership before an arrest. Now, if you have issued a you issued a writ in June let\'s say, meaning you have instructed lawyers and you understood that in order to protect the claim against the change of ownership after January, which was the time of the incident, and in June, you instructed lawyers to issue a writ in June, and then there was a change of ownership in July. All right. Now, it simply means that because The time of reckoning is when the action is brought, section 4(4)C. So if the action is brought in June, you have already obtained a writ against the ship under the old ownership of Mabel shipping, then you can still proceed. That is how it works. Because the change of ownership was subsequent. to the issuance of the writ. It protected the claim against the change of ownership. I hope you can follow that. Let\'s move to C. Same as B, right? No twist, just sold to Helen Shipping and renamed Helen in July. Which means if you follow the series of, the first answer, which was yes, defeated, you can no longer arrest because it\'s defeated by a change of ownership. But wait, Mabel owns another ship called the Mendy. Now, this is where you can follow with Section 4(4)D, any other ship that is beneficially owned by the relevant person at the time the action is brought. So that is what we commonly known as an **any other ship arrest**. Meaning, Andrew Yip (22:57.218) Mabel shipping has two ships or maybe even three ships, then another ship can be targeted even though the offending ship has now changed ownership. Because 44D has widened the net, broadened the net to say you can catch a ship that is also beneficially owned. So that covers section question C. And D, same as B, that Mabel shipping is the demise charter of the ship Maggie. Now this is another twist. The MICE charter of the ship MAGGI. Can you go after this ship MAGGI? Now the point about the MICE charter is 4 -4 -C. You have to go after that ship. Meaning that ship is the ship that is the MICE chartered and that is the offending ship. Right, so how does that work? That means that if Mabel is the ship that cargo was damaged in, and Mabel was demise charted by Mabel shipping, then the answer is yes. But since Mabel has been sold, but Mabel shipping is the demise charter of another ship, Maggie, but however Maggie was not the offending ship, so Maggie can\'t fulfill this part of 4 -4 -C, which is an action may be brought against that ship. If the time of action is brought, the relevant person is the beneficial owner or the demise charterer of that ship. That ship refers to the offending ship. So there can be no any other ship arrest when there\'s a demise charterer. Just to be very clear here, a demise charterer is only applicable to the offending ship. Andrew Yip (25:03.266) That means, like I said, Mabel is instead of the fact scenario, the first line, see Mabel carried on the ship, cargo carried on the ship Mabel owned by Mabel shipping. I say cargo carried on the ship Mabel, demise charted or bare boat charted by Mabel shipping. Now, then you can go after Mabel under 4(4) C, under the demise charter provision. You cannot go after Maggie. Because it is not that ship. It is yet another demise charter ship, but it is not part of the equation under 4 -4 -C. Andrew Yip (25:43.47) Hope that through that example and through my explanation as to how it works, you have a slightly better understanding of how section four works. The Bunga Malati Five is our Locus Classicus. It is a court of appeal decision on this jurisdiction. And it has outlined the prevailing test, which is called the five step test. I think you can read yourself, it\'s also in the judgment, it\'s also in my introduction notes. I will not spend too much time on it. All I can say is that whatever I have told you just now, right, is a succinct summary of the written words Andrew Yip (26:31.81) right, the five step test. Now, I move on to another area. When you have arrested the ship, what do you really want? You want security for your claim. Security meaning, like I said, it gives you security so that you can have a judgment and then you will never be placed in a situation that your judgment will go unsatisfied. So that\'s how security works. Now, what quantum of security are you entitled to? You are entitled to your reasonably best arguable case, right? Plus interest for three years, plus costs. The cost of you bringing in the action, right? So what is reasonably best arguable case? It simply means that if you have a case and your quantum is quantified, what is a reasonable best arguable case in terms of your If there\'s a range of quantums, both there\'s a range of high and low, then what is reasonably best arguable, you can use that as your claim. So that is the quantum of security. Now, the quantification of your security demand, you have to put it there with a breakdown, with an explanation. This is what the cases say. Just go with the proposition. you don\'t really need to these cases. Claim amount or valuation of the ship and you can select the target vessel. Just now we are saying you can either select the vessel that is the offending ship or you can also select a vessel that falls within any other ship. Now, the Banco principle means that you can only have one claim, one arrest. You can only do it once. Andrew Yip (28:33.166) and you would have exhausted your rights of arrest. So the claim amount or the valuation of the ship is the maximum quantum that you can get. If your ship is worth 10 million, but your claim is quantified at 25 million, you will only be entitled security for 10 million. The excess 15 million, you have already exhausted your right of arrest. That\'s how the claim amount or valuation of the ship. Let\'s say your claim is 8 million and the valuation of the ship is 10 million. Yes, then you would have carefully done due diligence, you\'ve diligently arrested and you will get your security. How does security work? How does the demand work? This part, I hope that you will pay some attention to it because it is quite important. Usually you make a security demand by way of correspondence. And then you say, have a claim. My claim is \$8 million. I give you the breakdown, it\'s cargo damage. This is interest and this is cost. So you say, please put up security within 48 hours or seven days, otherwise I will arrest your ship. Or after you have arrested your ship, you also put across correspondence to say, have arrested your ship. I want security at eight million. Please provide security acceptable to Singapore courts. Otherwise, I will not release the or I will proceed with the arrest. So now that is usually how a claimant fires across his security demand. And usually a defendant, the owner, right, or somebody acting on behalf of the ship will respond and say, look, I\'m going to give you security. Andrew Yip (30:47.436) What security am I giving you? I\'m going to give you security, say, by way of a club letter or by way of a bank guarantee. Please, this is the wording of the security. This is the club that I\'m giving security. Please respond that you accept and then we can proceed with the release of the ship. So that is the usual response. The plaintiff or the claimant will now say, hey, who is providing security? Who is the club? Who is the bank? Is this an entity that is acceptable to the Singapore courts? Because will this entity, will this bank, will this club still be around in two years or three years time at a trial to answer this judgment? That\'s the first thing the plaintiff will ask himself. The second thing is that what is the wording of the security? The third thing, of course, is what is the amount of the security? Now, if all goes well, right, and you are happy with all these questions, and you will say, yes, fine, I accept, and then the ship will be released. Now, sometimes you have a dispute where the plaintiff says that I don\'t agree with this club, for instance, and the club, the plaintiff says, maybe, like I said, maybe financially not stable. Then the defendant, having seen this, will say, no, it is stable. Here are the supporting documents to show that this club is stable. And the defendant may also take it one step further and say, I think that you are being unreasonable or you are acting in bad faith. Please accept this as sufficient or adequate security. If you don\'t, I will say that you are holding the ship unlawfully. It\'s what we call wrongful detention of the ship. Now that\'s how it works. Correspondence are exchanged to that effect. Security being offered. Andrew Yip (33:12.716) security being denied, whether reasonably or unreasonably, then put on notice that your actions have been unlawful and I want to hold you responsible. These are the types of security that is acceptable in Singapore, bank guarantee from a first class Singapore bank. So if you put across a bank guarantee and it is a first class Singapore bank and the plaintiff unreasonably rejects it because he says, I don\'t want accept bank guarantee. I want payment into Court. then the question really is that the defendant will say, please release the ship, otherwise you are liable for damages, for wrongful continued arrest or wrongful detention of the ship. Letter of undertaking from a reputable P&I club or hull and machinery underwriter, question what is a reputable institution? That is what we say. Basically, the question is, once you see that there\'s something that throws some question, some doubt, then it is arguable that it\'s not reputable. Payment into court also acceptable. Now bail bond is covered by order 33, rule 16. All I can say is that bail bond has to be provided by an entity of substance that is in Singapore. It is a rare creature. In practice, we hardly, in fact, we don\'t use a bail bond. In my years of practice, I have never put up security by way of a bail bond. So I would say it\'s there in the rules, but it is so archaic that nobody does it, nobody uses it. Now, Solicitor\'s letter of undertaking may, in certain circumstances where the claim is small, and the law firm is reputable and vague, may also be accepted. But the plain vanilla, those that cannot be argued would be bank guarantee, payment into court, and a reputable P &I club Andrew Yip (35:19.19) I think I\'ve already given you a snapshot into this. Quantum, right, usually disputes over the wording and sufficiency of the guarantor, right? Less common there, but also it happens. Moderation of security quantum. Now, sometimes the defendant is not happy that the amount demanded is on the high side, so they can reserve their rights and they say that I can apply to court later. to reduce the amount of security. Now, reasonableness of the wording, again, it is possible that sometimes some wording is being asked for that is unreasonable. So the court would be able to moderate this and the jurisdiction to set the amount of security. And then provision of security under protest, wrongful continued detention and application to call for a release for wrongful detention. Now this is the last step, meaning that you have offered reasonable security, acceptable security, but the claimant has been unreasonable. So you can provide security still under protest and then you can apply to court for the release of damages for wrongful detention. Andrew Yip (36:38.254) challenging the arrest. Now, if there is a dispute as to jurisdiction, you can use these provisions to challenge the arrest. Now, in Bunga Melati 5, please go and read paragraph 112 carefully as to what is required of the plaintiff. It means what is required of the plaintiff really is that he has to satisfy section three and section four, and the burden proof that is required at each stage, which is the five -step test that I\'ve talked about. Non -disclosure is also another common way of challenging the arrest, striking out, going out into the merits of the claim, or the nine rules 16, and then an arrest to enforce a settlement, as well as the test for wrongful arrest, which is bad faith. These are all usual\... methods of challenging the arrest. It will become clearer as to how much depth you need to go into this when you look at the questions that I prepared for the mock exams. I go into the mock exams. Please, if you want, take a photograph of this scenario now or screenshot. The entire lecture will be given to you after the lecture. But for this part of the discussion, I would like you to take a screenshot of this because we will be referring to this Andrew Yip (38:17.686) It\'s a collision between two ships, Casper and the burnt Lino. Both ships also are equally to blame. Both ships suffered damage, right? Casper is owned by a company called King Powder, which is a one ship owning company. And King Powder bare -boat chartered to Brandon Rodder. That is the bare boat charter or the MICE charter and that\'s how the ship Casper is operated. And Brandon Rodder uses Fox\'s management. ship management to manage the ship. The other ship that is collided with is called the Burn Lino. It has a cargo on board, soya bean, and the burnt lino is owned by the Gunas Inc. So far, let\'s move Again, like I said, take a screenshot of this because this is where I would like you to have this in front of you. Owners want to obtain security for their cargo claim. Owners of cargo. Owners of cargo found out that another ship called the Vadi, part of the fleet managed by Foxes, but owned by another. Andrew Yip (39:56.17) One Ship Owning Company. Okay, we\'ll be calling into Singapore for bunkering next week. Then Brandon Rodder has another Bebo charter tanker, the Madison. So Madison will also be calling into Singapore for bunkering next Andrew Yip (40:16.611) The last one, the last factual scenario is that the cargo owners receive an email from a P &I club, which is a P &I club called Filberth, and they are in financial difficulties. So they are covering the Casper interest. The club has proposed a club letter as security for the cargo claim. The wording of the club letter answers to a final judgment of the English courts. I hope you\'ve got screenshots of all these three or four factual scenarios. Now let\'s look at the first mock question. I don\'t know whether it will be good news or bad news, but the questions are all multiple choice questions. And which of the statement below about Cargill\'s claim against burnt lino is false? So that means Cargill on board the burnt lino wants to claim against the burnt Andrew Yip (41:24.718) You have that. Cargo on board the burnt lino wants to claim against the burnt lino. Which of the following statement is false? 1\. A. The cargo claim satisfies Section 31G of the Andrew Yip (41:48.302) Cargo\'s claim does not arise in connection with the ship, Bambino, and does not satisfy 448 of the Andrew Yip (42:05.166) Cargill\'s claim satisfied for B as the person liable. in an action in personam is lagunas, which is the owner of the burned lino at the time the cause of action arose. The cargo\'s claim satisfied for four, as the person that will be liable on the claim in personam is lagunas, which is the owner of the ship at the time when the action Andrew Yip (42:40.662) Alright, I think that if you have chosen B, then the answer is correct. In a sense that that statement is false. Okay, I just want you all to understand the thinking behind this is a question which is not unlike the Mabel shipping question because first we talk about 3 -1 and 3 -1G is satisfied. So that one is a true statement at A and if you look at C, cargo claim also satisfied for 4 as the person who is liable in an action in personam is the owner of the Berndino Lagunas at the time when the course of action arose. And under D, satisfied for false, C, and as the person that will be liable on a claim in action in personam is Lagunas, which is the owner of the ship at the time when the action is brought. So the only one that is false is that Cargill\'s claim does not arise in connection with the ship and therefore does not satisfy 448. That is false because it it does arise in connection with the ship, the burn beam. And it does satisfy for A. So B is a false stain. Andrew Yip (44:07.032) So If you pick B, then you\'re on the right track in understanding what we are trying to examine in terms of how 4 -4 works, how 3 -1G works with 4 -4. Next. Andrew Yip (44:28.778) Again, now this is Bern -Leno\'s claim against the Casper. Okay, you look at the factual scenario, this is a collision claim. Which of the statements below, which one is Andrew Yip (44:46.36) Burn Leno has a valid claim in Rem claim with the Maritime Lian against the Casper. B. Burn Leno also has a valid in Rem claim against Madison because Madison is barefoot charted by Brandon Rodder. C. Burn Leno does not have a valid in Rem claim against Casper. because Bern -Leno is unable to satisfy Section 3.1d of the High Court Act, Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, Bern -Leno does not have a valid in rem claim against Madison because it is not able to satisfy Section 4.3 of the High Court Admiralty Jurisdiction Andrew Yip (45:35.054) Okay, I think that it\'s quite obvious, right? It\'s a maritime lien claim and that is a valid in -ram claim pursuant to section four. I said that is section four Andrew Yip (45:52.686) So Section 4.3 is a true statement. for the rest of it, it\'s all false statements. So if you are able to again understand how Section 4.3 works in terms of what I\'ve explained, a maritime lien, and that once you have a maritime lien, you can go after the ship Casper. Now B says that Bernlinio also has a valid in -ramp claim against Madison. because the medicine is bare -boat chartered by Brandon Rodder. I\'ve already explained to you, you have to go after that particular ship. Bare -boat charter is not good enough. This example was already explained to you. Burn Lino does not have a valid in -ramp claim against Casper because Burn Lino is unable to satisfy 3.1d. Now, this is not true because You can either go under maritime lien, which is 4 -3, or you can go under section 31D, which is damage done by a ship. So this is again a false statement. And Bern -Leno does not have a valid in -ram claim against **[Kasper]** because it is not able to satisfy 4 -3 of the act. Actually, again, this is not true, right? Because you would have a maritime claim, okay? Sorry, I think this part I made a mistake. It should be Casper, not Madison. It has a typo error here. I will correct that when I give you all the final slides. The answer at D should be Casper, not Madison. Andrew Yip (47:49.068) Let\'s move Andrew Yip (47:55.702) Assuming that Bernalino has a valid claim, in RAM claim, which of the following statement reflects is a reasonable demand for security in exchange of the release of Casper after her arrest? A. Demand that security be provided strictly in the form of a bail B, a demand that security be provided strictly by a payment into point C, a demand that security be provided for an amount that would cover only the quantum of Bern -Leno\'s reasonably best arguable case or D, a demand that security be provided to cover Bern -Leno\'s full claim interest over three years and the cost of prosecuting the action. Okay, again, if you have followed the slides, you will know that what I\'ve said is that a few forms of security are acceptable. Right? Bail bonds strictly only that is not correct because you can use other forms of security. Payment into court strictly also not correct because I can choose to give you a bank guarantee. I can choose to give you a letter of undertaking. C, only covering the best case without interest and cost is also not correct. So D, right, is the one that reflects the most reasonable demand. Who claimed three years\' in the cause of prosecuting? So the answer should be Andrew Yip (49:38.656) Assuming, sorry, let me get Andrew Yip (49:45.334) Yes, please have a read. Andrew Yip (49:51.702) Okay, assuming that Bern -Leno has a valid Yeah, assuming cargo waited for a while before taking action. I don\'t know whether you all can see that part. But what it does is that it just says that assuming cargo waited for a while before taking action against the burned lino and burned lino has been sold in the interim and the new owners are Les Bleus but they have not changed the name of the ship, Burn Lino. So cargo arrested the burned lino and Les Bleus is now considering mounting a claim for damages and ask you for advice. Which advice is correct? For damages, you can only get damages for wrongful arrest if there is bad faith. Look at the cases, what is bad faith? Bad faith means that you know something is wrong, but you proceeded with it notwithstanding that you know something is wrong. You are determined to proceed with the arrest come what may, regardless of the true facts of the situation. A. Cargo\'s warrant of arrest may be set aside with damages if Cargo knew that Bernadino was owned by Le Bleu and did not disclose it at the time when the warrant of arrest was applied for. Andrew Yip (51:22.018) B. Leblou\'s will not be entitled to damages for a wrongful arrest, even if it can show that Cargill acted with malice when it arrested Bernd Lino. Damages for wrongful arrest may be awarded as long as the warden of arrest is set aside. Leblou\'s will not be entitled to an award of damages for wrongful arrest, because Bernd Lino\'s name was not changed. Obviously, if you look at this, the advice is A, that is correct. Let\'s go through the scenario because B, Le Blues will not be entitled to damages for wrongful arrest even if it can show that Cargill acted with malice. This is not correct because if you act with malice, then you will be entitled to damages for wrongful arrest. Then C, Damages for wrongful arrest may be awarded as long as the warrant of arrest is set aside. Now, it doesn\'t follow that way. You can challenge the arrest, you can set aside the arrest, but there is no bad faith. Your arrest is set aside, but damages for wrongful arrest will not be awarded. You still have to fulfill the test of bad faith. The Le Blues will not be entitled to award the damages for wrongful arrest because the name was not changed. No, it\'s not about name change, it\'s about ownership change. So if you show that as a first step, the ownership has changed, even though the name has not changed, that fact alone, name has not changed, it\'s not correct. Andrew Yip (53:02.784) Ownership is the And then of course you also need to show that they knew that there was a change of ownership, but yet they were bent on proceeding with the arrest. or three more just to give you all a flavor as to how much depth you need to prepare. Now, cargo wants to the vessel, the Vadi. Which of the following statements on Vadi will be true? You look at Vadi, if you go back to the screenshot that I\'ve told you to take, what is the Vadi? The Vadi is another tanker that is managed by Fox\'s ship management. Right? So it is another tanker that is managed by Fox\'s ship management. And it is owned by another single purpose, another one ship owning company as the ship owner. It is not owned by King Powder. It is not the demise charted by Brandon Rodder. So which of the following statement is true? Andrew Yip (54:19.278) It\'s a cargo claim. A, cargo claim does not satisfy 31D of the High Court Admiralty Jurisdiction Act. Now cargo is damaged by the collision. So in other words, it\'s damage done by a ship. Done by the ship. So it is an Admiralty claim that falls within 31D. Cargo\'s claim satisfy 43 against Vadi there\'s a maritime lien against the wadi. Again, that is not true. This statement is not true because wadi, there\'s no maritime lien on the wadi. The cargo claim is on the cargo, the ship that done the damage and in this case is the bandi. The bandino is the ship. Then cargo claim satisfy 44B if the person liable on the claim in an action in personam are the managers. Again, is the owner under section 44B is the owner or charterer or person in possession and control. Managers are not considered to be persons in possession and in control. So again, that statement is not true. Final one, cargo claim does not satisfy 44 because body is not owned by King Powder. That is the accurate statement. And in this case, that is the correct answer. Andrew Yip (55:53.022) P &I club proposal. There was a proposal from the P &I club, Philberth. Now, if you remember from the scenario, you receive an email, it proposed a club letter. So which of the following statement is correct? Has received A. Has received, cargo has received an acceptable proposal from the club and should accept it promptly. B. Cargo should reject the proposal because securities to strictly be by way of payment into court. Again, not correct. C, Cargill should ask the club for its financial information to verify the position. If it is in fact in financial difficulties, then Cargill should ask for a bank guarantee. Cargill should accept the proposal even though it answers to a final judgment of the English courts. I think the most correct answer here has to be C, Cargill should ask the club for its financial information to verify the financial position if it is in fact in financial difficulties, you can ask for a bank guarantee. The other statements are all not Andrew Yip (57:02.338) The last one, it transpired that Brandon Rodder owns the medicine and that she was not under Bebel Charter. Assuming Cargill now wants to pursue the medicine, which of the following statement is correct? So that means, Rodder, if you look at the scenario, Brandon Rodder was a demise charterer. So Brandon Rodder being a demise in the first part of section 44B is the person whose libel in personam is a charter. Right now, you want to pursue the ship called the medicine and medicine is owned by Brandon Roder. Obviously, this satisfies 44D. So the correct answer here is that which of the following statement is correct? It should be C, Cargill\'s claim satisfy 44D because medicine is owned. by Brandon Broder. This is any other ship arrest. All the other three statements are not B24 ADL - Basic - Jurisdiction **[s3(1)(a) - (r) High Court (Admiralty Judicature) Act]** - Security - Statutory Lien **[s3 and 4 AJA - Maritime claim]** - **[First action:]** Maritime Lien - automatic upon collision as recognised under common law (I.e. not dependent on s3). But the claim needs to **[satisfy s4(3)]** and can only be made against the **[offending ship]** - **[Second action:]** Something has happened to the offending ship, then via s3(1) claim. e.g. Offending ship have totalled. - Possessory Lien - Identification of Claims Invocation and Exercise of Admiralty Jurisdiction - **[Action in Rem]** - 3(1)(a)(b)(c) + s4(2) Action in Rem arising from statutory lien Maritime lien under common law but still need to go under **[s4(3)]** against the offending ship Bunga Melati 5 Test: - **[Step 1:]** s3(1)(d) to (q) - **[Step 2:]** + s4(4)(a) = claim arises in **[connection with a ship]** - [ ] + s4(4)(b) = at the time action arose + liable in personam + \"relevant ship\" **[Step 3:]** Who is the person liable on the claim in an action in personam **[Step 4:]** The relevant person was, when the cause of action arose, the owner of the charterer of, or in possession or in control of the ship - **[Step 5:]** +4(4)(c) = relevant person = beneficial owner / demise charterer of **[that ship]** - Can arrest a\. Mabel owned by Mabel Shipping Ltd in September for the damage caused in January Writ filed before change of ownership of the offending ship demise charter of the offending ship - Cannot arrest b\. Mabel owned by Mabel Shipping Ltd at the time of the action arose (**[change of ownership offers protection where writ filed after such change]**) d\. demise charterers of MAGGIE (**[Demise charter is only applicable to the offending ship]**) - **[Step 5:]** + s4(4)(d) = **[any other ship]** **[beneficially owned]** by the relevant person **[at the time the action is brought]** - Can arrest c\. Arrest Mandy - because any other ship beneficially owned (aka **[any other ship arrest]**) Cannot arrest - **[Security demand]** and breakdown - Due diligence: Exhausting the right of arrest - Acceptable forms of security - (The Arcadia Spirit, The Arktis Fighter) - Disputes over security issues - The Moschanthy - The Benja Bhum - The Evmar - **Challenging** the Arrest - The Eurohope Bunga Melati 5 (para 112 - The Eagle Prestige The Dilmun Fulmar - **[Wrongful Arrest]** - **[Test for wrongful arrest - The Kiku Pacific]** - Release from Arrest