Всем! Всем! Всем!
У кого есть практика по морскому(привелегированному) залогу или кто сталкивался с ним, огромная просьба поделиться практикой или оставить ссылку.
Заранее спасибо!
|
|
||
|
Если не знаешь, что делать - подожди, пока противник ошибется первым.
|
|
|
Сообщений в теме: 23
#2
-Гость-Sailor-
Отправлено 25 July 2003 - 16:24
мз это достаточно хитрая штука ввиду того , что это скрытое обременение и переходит на следующего владельца судна о котором он и не догадывается . Проблемма заключается в том , что существуют три международные конвенции на эту тему , последняя 1993 года ратифицирована РФ . Поэтому для старта почитай Международную конвенцию о морских залогах и ипотеках 1993 года (спроси у яндекса ) и кодекс торгового мореплавания . По практике все зависит от решения конкретного суда в соответствии с национальных законодательством.
Существуют методики проверки наличия морского залога на судно , но 100% результата не достичь. На западе есть специальные страховые продукты , и этот риск можно застраховать .
Regards
Sailor
Существуют методики проверки наличия морского залога на судно , но 100% результата не достичь. На западе есть специальные страховые продукты , и этот риск можно застраховать .
Regards
Sailor
#3
Отправлено 14 August 2003 - 15:00
Уважаемые господа может кто а инете видел, что-нибудь по морскому залогу
А то головняк
А то головняк
#4
Отправлено 15 August 2003 - 07:31
Есть куча статей на эту тему. Могу скинуть почитать. Но толку от них никакого, поскольку нет судебной практики.
Мне СОЮ заворачивает заявления об объявлении морского залога на судно с мотивировкой (дословно) ...в связи с отсутствием искового заявления и несоразмерности стоимости судна и заявленных сумм...
Мне СОЮ заворачивает заявления об объявлении морского залога на судно с мотивировкой (дословно) ...в связи с отсутствием искового заявления и несоразмерности стоимости судна и заявленных сумм...
#5
Отправлено 15 August 2003 - 16:52
Eugene
Это как? Тоже морская специфика процесса?
Цитата
...в связи с отсутствием искового заявления
Это как? Тоже морская специфика процесса?
#6
Отправлено 15 August 2003 - 20:02
Не в тему.
Во-первых, Женя дай телефон, как с тобой связаться.
Поскольку, я встречался с Вадим Германовичем на указанный предмет. Мы достаточно долго дискутировали на этот предмет.
В общем я выснил, что изначально при составлении и КТМ РФ и упомянутой здесь Конвенции, была совершена очень не простительная ошибка при буквальном переводе слова "морской залог". В связи с этим и возникают до сих пор трудности реализации его на практике. По смыслу суть данного обремененения с процессуальной точки зрения заключается в рамках предварительных ОМ (АПК) и ОМ (ГПК). Главное здесь сроки объявления.
Мля, надоело писАть. Женя дай свои координаты. Я считаю, что мы как новое поколение -должны прорубить окно в Европу. Из мертворожденных норм родить здоровые правила соответствующие международной морской практики.
ЗЫ: Забыли главное, указать: Конвеция уважаемые еще не вступила в силу, а потому ей говорим - до скорых встреч. Но это не главное. Все существенные правила- продублированы в КТМ РФ.
На счет практики -отвечу: До ввведения в действия нового АПК - была. Сейчас ее в России похоронили. Но пытаемся все таки протолкнуть эти спецнормы в арбитражных судах.
Во-первых, Женя дай телефон, как с тобой связаться.
Поскольку, я встречался с Вадим Германовичем на указанный предмет. Мы достаточно долго дискутировали на этот предмет.
В общем я выснил, что изначально при составлении и КТМ РФ и упомянутой здесь Конвенции, была совершена очень не простительная ошибка при буквальном переводе слова "морской залог". В связи с этим и возникают до сих пор трудности реализации его на практике. По смыслу суть данного обремененения с процессуальной точки зрения заключается в рамках предварительных ОМ (АПК) и ОМ (ГПК). Главное здесь сроки объявления.
Мля, надоело писАть. Женя дай свои координаты. Я считаю, что мы как новое поколение -должны прорубить окно в Европу. Из мертворожденных норм родить здоровые правила соответствующие международной морской практики.
ЗЫ: Забыли главное, указать: Конвеция уважаемые еще не вступила в силу, а потому ей говорим - до скорых встреч. Но это не главное. Все существенные правила- продублированы в КТМ РФ.
На счет практики -отвечу: До ввведения в действия нового АПК - была. Сейчас ее в России похоронили. Но пытаемся все таки протолкнуть эти спецнормы в арбитражных судах.
#7
-Гость-Sailor-
Отправлено 16 August 2003 - 02:31
Кому интересно и сможет почитайте мнение профессора Тетлей большого авторитета в этом деле и вы мои друзья поимете , что по миру нет порядка в этом деле . И что вы хотите от судьи в наших пенатах , если вы конечно должным образом не сформировали его мнение
Maritime Liens and Claims
The essence is in the detail. We must be international in our outlook. We must be for change and improvement.
I. Introduction
(1) To understand conflicts of law, one must first establish the exact differences between two competing laws. Considerable detail is therefore given here of the lien and mortgage laws of the U.S. on the one hand and the U.K. and Canada on the other.
(2) In other words, conflict of laws means comparative law. And a study of comparative law means studying conflict of laws. (3) In this regard, it is noteworthy that Dicey's first edition (1896) was entitled not "Conflict of Laws" but "A Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws".II. Traditional Maritime Liens (ICL p. 539; MLC, 2 Ed., 59-60) Traditional maritime liens is a term used internationally to refer to maritime liens which rank ahead of maritime liens. Herewith are the essential characteristics of traditional maritime liens: 1) Arise with the claim. 2) Follow the ship, even after a bona fide sale (except a judicial sale). 3) Are secret -- need not be registered. 4) Rank ahead of a ship mortgage. 5) Are rights found in the codes of civilian jurisdictions.III. Ranking U.S. (ICL p. 540; MLC, 2 Ed., pp. 872-876) Ranking of liens differs from country to country and is the principal cause of the conflicts of law which arise in respect of maritime liens and ship mortgages. The American system of ranking is very original and out of step with most of the rest of the world.1) Special legislative rights (of governments) (wreck removal; St. Lawrence Seaway and Panama Canal tolls and damages; rights of detention, removal and destruction for pollution; rights of forfeiture and sale for various federal statutory offences (e.g. drug trafficking, illegal immigration, etc.); 2) Custodia legis and some court costs (e.g. costs of seizure and judicial sale and attorney's fees); 3) Preferred maritime liens: a) Wages of master and crew (including maintenance and cure), Salvage (including contract salvage) and general average (cargo against the ship) c) Maritime torts (e.g. collision), including personal injury and death, property damage and cargo tort liens; d) Longshoremen (individuals, not stevedore company). e) U.S. contract maritime liens (necessaries) entered into before the filing of a U.S. preferred mortgage. This includes repairs, supply of bunkers, supplies, stevedores, towage, contract cargo damage liens and charterer's liens, etc. (and also including statutory maritime liens, e.g. for civil penalties); 4) Preferred U.S. ship mortgage liens, as of the date of filing, as well as preferred ship mortgages on foreign ships whose mortgages have been guaranteed under Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 U.S. Code Appx. sect. 1101 et seq. at sect. 1271 et seq.); 5) U.S. contract liens (necessaries) arising after the filing of the U.S. preferred ship mortgage (these are not preferred maritime liens); 6) Foreign ship mortgages (not guaranteed under Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936); 7) U.S. contract liens (other than necessaries) (e.g. contract cargo damage liens and charterers' liens) accruing after foreign ship mortgages; 8) Unregistered (i.e. non-preferred) mortgages and perfected, non-maritime liens (including tax liens and other Government claims which are subordinate to maritime liens); state chattel mortgages and liens and liens for maritime attachment; and foreign contract liens (e.g. U.K. or Canadian statutory rights in rem). IV. Who May Bind in the U.S.(ICL p. 541; MLC, 2 Ed., pp. 602-605). In the U.S., the charterer (and not merely the shipowner) is presumed to have authority to bind the ship for necessaries. If the charterer does not have authority to bind the ship, the supplier of necessaries must be informed in advance. The supplier need not inquire if there is Aa prohibition of lien clause@ in the charterparty or in the ship mortgage.V. Containers (MLC, 2 Ed., pp. 609-616) Containers must have been "delivered to" or "earmarked for" a particular ship and then loaded on that ship to give a right in rem in the U.K., The River Rima [1988] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 193 (H.L.). Similarly containers in the U.S. give a contract maritime lien if actually delivered to or earmarked for a particular ship and then loaded on the ship in question (in the 2nd Circuit - New York, 4th Circuit -Florida, 5th Circuit - Louisiana and Texas, and 9th Circuit - West Coast U.S.A. However in a Canadian case, Textainer v. Baltic Sh. 1995 AMC 840 (Fed. Ct. of Can. 1994), a lien was recognized, although the containers were not directed to the ship. There was a lien clause in the lease of the containers, nevertheless. On the other hand, more recently, in Holt Cargo Systems Inc. v. ABC Containerline N.V. (2000) 16 C.B.R.(4th) 188 (also reported sub nom. Holt Cargo Systems Inc. v. van Dooselare 2000 AMC 1124) (Fed. Ct. of Can.), it was held that such a contractual lien in a container lease "... has no special priority as against the claims of a third party, including the mortgagee." (C.B.R.(4th) at p. 217, AMC at p. 1146). The Court also reaffirmed that container rental claims "... could not be more than claims for necessaries under Canadian maritime law." (i.e. statutory rights in rem, rather than maritime liens) and therefore that such claims had "... no priority ahead of the mortgagee." (C.B.R.(4th) at p. 218, AMC at p. 1146).VI. Ranking in the U.K. and Canada ( ICL pp. 539-540; MLC, 2 Ed., pp. 884-890 and 892-897) Ranking of liens and mortgages in the U.K. and Canada is more traditional than in the U.S. and is as follows: 1) Special legislative rights; 2) Court costs (e.g. costs of seizure and judicial sale) and custodia legis; 3) Maritime liens salvage, damage (e.g. collision), wages. 4) Ship mortgages (registered); 5) Necessaries give statutory rights in rem: a) Do not follow the ship when sold, Only owner or beneficial owner may bind the ship in Canada for statutory rights in rem. c) In U.K., the owner, beneficial owner or demise charterer may bind the ship for statutory rights in rem. d) For bunkers, repairs, supplies, towage, etc. e) There is no statutory right in rem for stevedores in the U.K., but there is in Canada. f) Necessaries in Canada extend to goods and materials as well as services and insurance. Necessaries in the U.K. extend to goods and materials. g) Statutory rights in rem arise in U.K. upon issue of the writ (now called an "in rem claim form"). h) Statutory rights in rem arise in Canada upon arrest of the ship. VII. Four Major Decisions Four major decisions are noted here to illustrate how conflicts of maritime liens and mortgages have been solved. 1) Ioannis Daskalelis [1974] S.C.R. 1248, [1974] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 174, 1973 AMC 176 (Supr. Ct. of Can.) (ICL pp. 566-567). a) Greek ship has a Greek mortgage, i.e. foreign mortgage. Ship is repaired in Todd Shipyard, Brooklyn. c) Ship sails, avoiding possessory lien and U.S. maritime lien for repairs. d) Ship avoids arrest in U.S. on orders of mortgagee. e) Ship arrested in Canada. f) Supreme Court of Canada recognizes a foreign lien (the U.S. maritime lien for repairs) as a maritime lien, although no such maritime lien exists in Canadian law. Ranks the U.S. lien procedurally by Canadian lex fori, ahead of the mortgage. 2) Halcyon Isle [1980] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 325, 1980 AMC 1221, [1981] A.C. 221 (P.C.) (ICL pp. 570-573). a) British ship has a British mortgage (mortgage not recorded). Ship enters the same Todd Shipyard in Brooklyn and is repaired. c) Ship sails and avoids possessory lien and U.S. maritime lien for repairs. d) Mortgage is registered. e) Ship is arrested in Singapore. f) Privy Council applies the lex fori (3-2) and does not recognize the lien. In a strong dissenting decision, Lords Salmon and Scarman held as follows:"A maritime lien is a right of property given by way of security for a maritime claim. If the Admiralty Court has, as in the present case, jurisdiction to entertain the claim, it will not disregard the lien. A maritime lien validly conferred by the lex loci is as much part of the claim as is a mortgage similarly valid by the lex loci. Each is a limited right of property securing the claim. The lien travels with the claim, as does the mortgage: and the claim travels with the ship. It would be a denial of history and principle, in the present chaos of the law of the sea governing the recognition and priority of maritime liens and mortgages, to refuse the aid of private international law." (Emphasis added) ([1981] A.C. 221 at p. 250, [1980] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 325 at p. 339, 1980 AMC 1221 at p. 1249). They also held: "The question is - does English law, in circumstances such as these, recognise the maritime lien created by the law of the United States of America, i.e. the lex loci contractus where no such lien exists by its own internal law? In our view the balance of authorities, the comity of nations, private international law and natural justice all answer this question in the affirmative. If this be correct then English law (the lex fori) gives the maritime lien created by the lex loci contractus precedence over the mortgagees' mortgage. If it were otherwise, injustice would prevail. The ship-repairers would be deprived of their maritime lien, valid as it appeared to be throughout the world, and without which they would obviously never have allowed the ship to sail away without paying a dollar for the important repairs upon which the ship-repairers had spent a great deal of time and money and from which the mortgagees obtained substantial advantages." ([1981] A.C. 221 at pp. 246-247, [1980] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 325 at pp. 336-337, 1980 AMC 1221 at p. 1244). 3) Ocean Ship Supply v. Leah 729 F. 2d 971, 1984 AMC 2089 (4 Cir. 1984) (ICL p. 549). a) Greek ship obtains necessaries in Quebec City - January 1, 1980. 
August 1980, ship sold and registered in Honduras. c) Ship arrested in Charleston S.C. d) American Court recognizes the statutory right in rem of Canada and that it is not a maritime lien and is lost with the sale of the ship. e) Arrest and claim dismissed. 4) Marlex Petroleum v. Har Rai [1984] 2 F.C. 345, 1984 AMC 1649 (Fed. Ct. of Appeal); upheld [1987] 1 S.C.R. 57 (Supreme Ct. of Canada) (ICL pp. 567-568). a) Bunkers supplied in Los Angeles to a time chartered vessel flying the Indian flag. Bunkers not ordered by owner but supplier did not know of charterer's lack of authority (former 46 U.S. Code Appx. sect. 973, now 46 U.S. Code 31341 and 31342). c) Vessel arrested in Vancouver. d) U.S. maritime lien was recognized in Canada. e) Proceedings also in personam against the owner, but were dismissed. VIII. The New Zealand Experience (ICL 576-578) In The Betty Ott v. General Bills Ltd. [1992] 1 N.Z.L.R. 655, the New Zealand Court of Appeal held that on the basis of The Halcyon Isle (supra) (by which the Court was presumably bound), it could not recognize a foreign ship mortgage duly registered in Australia as equivalent to a New Zealand ship mortgage, because the mortgage was not registered in New Zealand. This was so, despite the fact that Australian ship mortgages are registered under terms and conditions very similar to those governing ship mortgage registration in New Zealand. The Australian mortgage was therefore held subordinate under New Zealand ranking to an equitable charge resulting from a debenture issue. The decision points up the absurd results to which The Halcyon Isle, as a general principle, can lead, as the minority in that decision foresaw. The Halcyon Isle was also followed in ABC Shipbrokers v. The Offi Gloria [1993] 3 N.Z.L.R. 576 (N.Z. High Ct.) and again in Fournier v. The Margaret Z [1999] 3 N.Z.L.R. 111 (N.Z. High Ct.). In an effort to counteract the effect of The Betty Ott, the New Zealand Parliament enacted sect. 70 of the Ship Registration Act 1992 (No. 89 of 1992), which provides for the recognition in New Zealand of foreign "instruments creating securities or charges" on ships, provided that such instruments are duly registered under the law of the vessel's flag. Such foreign securities or charges are also accorded the same priority as registered New Zealand ship mortgages. By treating all foreign-registered charges on ships as the equivalent of New Zealand ship mortgages, however, the statute fails to take account of the differing nature of these foreign charges among themselves and thus does a disservice to the conflict of laws. IX. Other Jurisprudence Canadian decisions (recognizing foreign maritime liens)1) Metaxas v.The Galaxias (No. 2) [1989] 1 F.C. 386, (1988) 19 F.T.R. 108 (Fed. Ct. of Can.) (ICL p. 568);2) Sembawang Reefer Lines (Bahamas) Ltd. v. Lina Erre (1990) 30 F.T.R. 31, [1990] ETL 35 (Fed. Ct. of Can.), reversed on other grounds (1990) 114 N.R. 270, (1991) 38 F.T.R. 240 (note) (Fed. Ct. of App.) (ICL p. 568); 3) Shibamoto & Co. v. Western Fish Producers Inc. [1991] 3 F.C. 214, (1991) 43 F.T.R. 1 (Fed. Ct. of Can,), upheld (1993) 145 N.R. 91 (Fed. Ct. of App.) (ICL p. 569); 4) Frisol Bunckering B.V. v. M/V Alexandria (1992) 47 F.T.R. 3 (Fed. Ct. of Can.) (ICL p. 569); 5) Holt Cargo Systems Inc. v. ABC Containerline N.V. [1997] 3 F.C. 187 at p. 202, (1997) 146 D.L.R. (4th) 736 at p. 745, 1997 AMC 2815 at pp. 2833-2834 (Fed. Ct. of Can.), upheld (1999) 239 N.R. 114, (1999) 173 D.L.R. (4th) 493, 1999 AMC 1486 (Fed. C.A.), upheld (2001) 207 D.L.R. (4th) 577, (2001) 280 N.R. 201 (S.C.C.). 6) Fraser Shipyard and Industrial Centre Ltd. v. Expedient Maritime Co. Ltd. (The Atlantis Two) (1999) 170 F.T.R. 1 at pp. 13-15, 23-24, 26-29 and 31-36, 2000 AMC 543 at pp. 550-551, 563-565, 567-570 and 573-580 (Fed. Ct. of Can. per Prothonotary Hargrave), varied by (1999) 170 F.T.R. 57, 2000 AMC 28 (Fed. Ct. of Can. per Rouleau J.); 7) Holt Cargo Systems Inc. v. ABC Containerline N.V. (2000) 16 C.B.R. (4th) 188 at pp. 206, 209-211 and 212 (also reported sub nom. Holt Cargo Systems Inc. v. van Dooselare 2000 AMC 1124 at pp. 1129-1130, 1139-1140 and 1141) (Fed. Ct. of Can.). 8) Bank of Scotland v. The Nel (2000) 189 F.T.R. 230 at p. 237, [2001] 1 F.C. 408 at p. 420 (Fed. Ct. of Can. per Hargrave, P.).9) Re Antwerp Bulk Carriers, N.V. (2001) 207 D.L.R. (4th) 612 at p. 625 (S.C.C.).But see also Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Petromar Inc. (2001) 209 D.L.R. (4th) 158, 283 N.R. 182 (Fed. C.A.), where the predominance of Canadian contacts led the Federal Court of Appeal to refuse to recognize and enforce the American maritime lien claim and to reverse the Federal Court Trial Division's decision reported at (2000) 187 F.T.R. 208. The Ioannis Daskalelis has also been cited with approval in other (non-conflicts) decisions in respect of Canadian maritime law on maritime liens and on ranking: 1) Ultramar Canada Inc. v. Pierson Steamships Ltd. (1982) 43 C.B.R.(N.S.) 9 at p. 12 (Fed. Ct. of Can.); 2) Western Stevedoring v. The Andalou Guney (1988) 23 F.T.R. 112 at p. 124. (Fed. Ct. of Can.); 3) Scott Steel v. The Alarisa [1996] 2 F.C. 883 at p. 893, (1996) 111 F.T.R. 81 at p. 86 (Fed. Ct. of Can. per Hargrave, P.). The Ioannis Daskalelis has also been cited in Canadian non-maritime decisions, including conflict of law decisions, such as: 1) Canron Inc. v. Ferrolab Ltée (1986) 7 B.C.L.R. (2d) 291 at p. 294 (British Columbia County Ct.);2) Re Sefel Geophysical Ltd. (1988) 62 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193 at p. 200, (1988) 54 D.L.R.(4th) 117 at p. 124 (Alberta Q.B.); 3) Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Canadian Commercial Bank (1992) 7 Alta. L.R.(3d) 390 at p. 394, (1992) 16 C.B.R.(3d) 147 at p. 151 (Altberta Q.B.); 4) Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Canadian Commercial Bank (1994) 23 Alta. L.R.(3d) 418 at p. 422, (1994) 121 D.L.R.(4th) 360 at p. 363 (Alberta Q.B.). American decisions (applying foreign law to foreign maritime liens and claims because of foreign contacts or express choice of law) 1) State of Israel v. M/V Nili 435 F.2d 242, 1971 AMC 428 (5 Cir. 1970), cert. denied 401 U.S. 994, 1971 AMC 1325 (1971) (ICL pp. 559-560) (recognition of foreign shipbuilder's mortgage); 2) Gulf Oil v. Creole Supply 596 F.2d 515, 1979 AMC 585 (2 Cir. 1979), on rehearing denied, 596 F.2d 522, 1979 AMC 1163 (2 Cir. 1979) (ICL p. 559) (foreign judicial sale and foreign ranking recognized as terminating U.S. supplier's maritime lien); 3) Forsythe International v. Ruth Venture 633 F.Supp. 74, 1986 AMC 621 (D. Ore. 1985) (ICL pp. 553-554) (English law applied to bunker supply in S. Africa); 4) Cantieri Navali Riuniti v. M/V Skyptron 802 F.2d 160, 1987 AMC 463 (5 Cir. 1986) (recognition that foreign mortgagee, by mortgage deed, had waived its preference over foreign maritime lienors, under art. 2 of Liens and Mortgages Convention 1926); 5) Chantier Naval Voisin v. M/Y Daybreak 677 F.Supp. 1563, 1989 AMC 151 (S.D. Fla. 1988) (ICL p. 556) (French law applied to French repair claim); 6) Swedish Telecom Radio v. M/V Discovery I 712 F.Supp. 1542, 1990 AMC 85 (S.D. Fla. 1988); on reconsideration 712 F.Supp. 1547, 1990 AMC 93 (S.D. Fla. 1989) (ICL pp. 556-557) (Swedish law applied to Spanish repair claim re repairs done in Spain); 7) Trinidad Foundry v. M/V Kas Camilla 776 F.Supp. 1558, 1991 AMC 2166 (S.D. Fla. 1991), affirmed, 966 F.2d 613, 1992 AMC 2636 (11 Cir. 1992) (ICL p. 563) (English law applied to Trinidad repair claim);8) North End Oil v. Ocean Confidence 777 F.Supp. 12, 1992 AMC 1067 (C.D. Cal. 1991) (ICL pp. 563-564) (English law, applicable by contract, governed U.S. bunker supplier's claim); 9) Sembawang Shipyard v. Charger 955 F.2d 983, 1993 AMC 1341 (5 Cir. 1992) (ICL) pp. 561-562) (Singapore law applied to Singapore repair claim); 10) North End Oil v. Norman Spirit 1993 AMC 88 (C.D. Cal. 1992) (ICL pp. 564-565) (English law, applicable by contract, governed U.S. bunker supplier's claim); 11) Isbrandtsen Marine Services, Inc. v. M/V Inagua Tania 93 F.3d 728, 1997 AMC 912 (summ.) (11 Cir. 1996) (foreign seamen allowed to intervene to assert foreign wage lien against U.S. judicial sale proceeds of ship); 12) First Marine Distributors, Inc. v. M/V Marylou II 1997 AMC 22 (D. Md. 1996) (English law, applicable by contract, governed claim for bunkers supplied in Egypt); 13) Heidmar, Inc. v. Anon. Ravennate 993 F.Supp. 990, 1998 AMC 47 (S.D. Tex. 1997), vacated in part on other grounds, 132 F.3d 264, 1998 AMC 982 (5 Cir. 1998) (English law, applicable by contract, defeated claim of U.S. maritime lien for breach of charterparty); 14) KLLM Transport Services, Inc. v. M/V Sea Eagle 1997 AMC 2045 (S.D. Fla. 1996) (Panamanian master's maritime wage lien recognized under Panamanian law, despite U.S. statute which grants U.S. maritime wage lien only to masters of U.S. documented vessels); 15) Garcia v. M/V Kubbar 1998 AMC 893 (N.D. N.Y. 1997) (Guatemalan law held applicable and recognized as granting no maritime lien for personal injury to Guatemalan longshoreman injured on Kuwaiti ship in Guatemala); 16) Ost-West-Handel Bruno Bischoff G.m.b.H. v. Project Asia Line, Inc. 970 F.Supp. 471, 1998 AMC 989 (E.D. Va. 1997) (foreign ship mortgage found valid under Liberian law and therefore entitled to priority as foreign preferred ship mortgage under U.S ranking); 17) Lion de Mer v. M/V Loretta D 1998 AMC 1410 (D. Md. 1998) (No maritime lien recognized, under either Greek or Liberian law, re supply of bunkers to time charterer of a Liberian ship in Greece); 18) Madredeus Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Century Bridge Chartering Co. Ltd. 2000 AMC 957 at p. 960 (S.D. Fla. 2000) (no maritime lien, and therefor no right to arrest ship under Supplemental Rule C, for unpaid bunkers, where bunker supply contract specified Hong Kong law, because that law, based on Asubstantive English maritime law@, recognizes only a statutory right in rem, and not a maritime lien, for supply of bunkers. Shipowner was entitled to invoke the choice of law clause to bar the maritime lien, even where the supply contract was concluded by a charterer); 19) Bender Shipbuilding & Repair Co., Inc. V. Drive Ocean V 2000 AMC 1958 at pp. 1965-1967 (S.D. Cal. 1998), aff=d 2000 AMC 1973 at p. 1974 (Editor=s Note) (9 Cir. 2000) (no maritime lien for misrepresentation and related tort claims concerning negotiation and performance of a time charterparty, where charterparty was subject to "the laws of the Province of British Columbia" (i.e. Canadian maritime law), where such claims give rise to no maritime lien); 20) Galehead, Inc. V. M/V Liman 2000 AMC 2689 (E.D. La. 2000) (No maritime lien for bunkers supplied in Pakistan, despite contrary judgment of a Belgian court, where bunker supply contract (not discovered at time of Belgian proceedings) provided for English law, which grants no such lien);21) Bolongon v. M/V Nor-Atlantic 2001 AMC 722 (E.D. La. 1999) (No maritime lien for unpaid insurance premiums where insurance contract between P. & I. club and vessel owner provided for English law, under which there is no maritime lien for necessaries, including insurance);22) Liverpool & London Steamship Protection and Indemnity Association Ltd. v. M/V Queen of Leman 2001 AMC 1357 (E. D. La. 2001) (English law governing P. & I. insurance policy precludes maritime lien for unpaid premiums being enforced in U.S., despite reference in the club rules to the right to pursue a lien for such premiums in any jurisdiction in accordance with local law, such reference being to local procedural law only). American decisions (applying American law to foreign maritime liens and claims because of U.S. contacts or because foreign law unproven) 1) Payne v. Tropic Breeze 423 F.2d 236, 1970 AMC 1850 (1 Cir. 1970), cert. denied sub nom. Samadjopoulos v. National Western Life Insurance Co. 400 U.S. 964, 1971 AMC 818 (1970) (ICL pp. 560-561); 2) Rainbow Line Inc. v. M/V Tequila 480 F.2d 1024, 1973 AMC 1431 (2 Cir. 1973) (ICL pp. 557-558); 3) Potash Co. of Canada v. M/V Raleigh 361 F.Supp. 120, 1973 AMC 2658 (D C.Z. 1973) (ICL p. 558 note 99); 4) Sasportes v. Sol de Copacabana 581 F.2d 1204, 1980 AMC 791 (5 Cir. 1978) (ICL p. 561); 5) Rayon Y Celanese v. M/V PHGH 471 F.Supp. 1363 (D. Ala. 1979); 6) Gulf Trading & Transportation Co. v. Hoegh Shield 658 F.2d 363, 1982 AMC 1138 (5 Cir. 1981), cert. denied 457 U.S. 1119, 1982 AMC 2108 (1982) (ICL p. 555);7) Gulf Trading & Transportation Co. v. M/V Tento 694 F.2d 1191, 1983 AMC 872 (9 Cir. 1982), cert. denied 461 U.S. 929, 1983 AMC 2109 (1983) (ICL pp. 558-559); 8) Cardinal Shipping v. Seisho Maru 744 F.2d 461, 1985 AMC 2630 (5 Cir. 1984) (ICL p. 560); 9) Tramp Oil v. Mermaid I 743 F.2d 48, 1985 AMC 459 (1 Cir. 1984), on remand, 630 F.Supp. 630, 1987 AMC 129 (D. P.R. 1986), affirmed 805 F.2d 42, 1987 AMC 866 (1 Cir. 1986) (ICL p. 561); 10) Exxon Corp. v. Central Gulf Lines 707 F.Supp. 155, 1989 AMC 2467 (S.D. N.Y. 1989), reconsideration denied, 717 F.Supp. 1029, 1989 AMC 2943 (S.D. N.Y. 1989), affirmed 904 F.2d 33, 1990 AMC 1816 (2 Cir. 1990), reversed on other grounds, 500 U.S. 603, 1991 AMC 1817 (1991), summary judgment granted, 780 F.Supp 191 at p. 193, 1992 AMC 1663 at p. 1666 (S.D. N.Y. 1991) (ICL p. 553);11) Castelan v. M/V Mercantil Parati 1991 AMC 2141 (D. N.J. 1991) (ICL pp. 562-563); 12) Arochem Corp. v. Wilomi 962 F.2d 496, 1992 AMC 2347 (5 Cir. 1992); 13) Espirito Santo Bank v. M/V Tropicana 1992 AMC 1672 (S.D. Fla. 1990), affirmed without 18) In re Eagle Geophysical, Inc. 2001 AMC 1808 (D. Del. in Bankr. 2001);19) Hawkspere Shipping Co. Ltd. v. 65 Bundles of Secondary Aluminum 178 F. Supp.2d 486, 2001 AMC 1826 (D. Md. 2001). Nota Bene: Even where foreign law applies to the recognition of the foreign maritime lien or claim, U.S. law always governs the ranking of the claims. See in particular:1) Mobile Marine Sales, Ltd. v. M/V Prodomos 776 F.2d 85, 1986 AMC 1337 (3 Cir. 1985); 2) Oil Shipping (Bunkering) B.V. v. Royal Bank of Scotland 817 F.Supp. 1254, 1993 AMC 1774 (E.D. Pa. 1993), affirmed 10 F.3d 1015, 1994 AMC 892 (3 Cir. 1993); 3) Banco de Credito Industrial, S.a. v. Tesoreria General 990 F.2d 827 at p. 832, 1993 AMC 2029 at p. 2034 (5 Cir. 1992); 4) Sunrise Shipping Ltd. V. M/V American Chemist 1999 AMC 2906 at p. 2918 (E.D. La. 1999); 5) Bender Shipbuilding & Repair Co., Inc. v. Drive Ocean V 2000 AMC 1973 at p. 1974 (9 Cir. 2000) (Editors Note) and other decisions cited there. American courts also generally recognize that valid foreign judicial sales terminate U.S. maritime liens on vessels. See in particular:1) Atlantic Ship Supply, Inc. v. M/V Lucy 392 F.Supp. 179, 1975 AMC 1153 (M.D. Fla. 1975), affirmed 553 F.2d 1009 (5 Cir. 1977) (Costa Rican judicial sale); 2) Gulf & Southern Terminal Corp. v. S.S. President Roxas 701 F.2d 1110, 1983 AMC 1521 (4 Cir. 1983), cert. denied 462 U.S. 1133, 1983 AMC 2109 (1983) (Mexican judicial sale); 3) S.C. State Ports Authority v. Silver Anchor, S.A. 23 F.3d 842, 1994 AMC 2463 (4 Cir. 1994) (Greek judicial sale). But see also Crescent Towing & Salvage Co., Inc. v. Anax Navigation Co., S.A. 40 F.3d 741, 1995 AMC 1106 (5 Cir. 1994) (Greek judicial sale not recognized, absent proof that sale extinguished U.S. maritime lien under Greek law); Thorsteinsson v. M/V Drangur 891 F.2d 1547, 1990 AMC 2478 (11 Cir. 1990) (no recognition of foreign judicial sale unless ship was actually sezied by the foreign court). American decisions applying forum non conveniens to foreign maritime liens and claims 1) Comoco Marine v. El Centroamericano 1984 AMC 1434 (D. Or. 1983) (ICL p. 554); 2) Belcher Co. v. Maratha Mariner 724 F.2d 1161, 1984 AMC 1679 (5 Cir. 1984) (ICL pp. 554-555); 3) Forsyth International (U.K.) Ltd. v. S.S. Penavel 630 F.Supp 61, (S.D. Ga 1985), affirmed without opinion, 786 F.2d 1180 (11 Cir. 1986); 4) Perez & Co. v. Mexico I 826 F.2d 1449, 1988 AMC 1930 (5 Cir. 1987) (ICL p. 557). Australia In Morlines Maritime Agency Ltd. & Ors v. The Skulptor Vuchetich 1997 AMC 1727, the Federal Court of Australia decided to follow The Halcyon Isle. South Africa The Halcyon Isle was followed in:1) The Andrico Unity 1989 (4) S.A. 325, 1989 AMC 1561 (S. African Supr. Ct., App. Div.), upholding 1987 (3) S.A. 794 (Cape of Good Hope Provincial Div.) (ICL p. 574); 2) Brady-Hamilton Stevedoring v. Kalantiao 1989 (4) S.A. 355, 1989 AMC 1597 (S. African Supr. Ct., App. Div.) (ICL pp. 574-575);3) Banco Exterior de Espana S.A. v. Government of Namibia 1999 (2) S.A. 434 (Namibia High Court). Cyprus The Halcyon Isle was followed in: Hassanein v. The Hellenic Island [1989] 1 C.L.R. 406 (Cyprus Supr. Ct.) (ICL pp. 575-576). Singapore Singapore followed The Halcyon Isle in The Andres Bonifacio (1993) 3 S.L.R. 521 (Singapore C.A.). The Halcyon Isle has also been invoked to establish that the categories of maritime liens in Singapore's maritime law are the same as those at English maritime law. See The Ohm Mariana ex Peony (1992) 2 S.L.R. 623 (Singapore High Ct.). No foreign maritime lien claim was asserted in this case, however. Malaysia The Malaysian High Court has held, on the basis of The Halcyon Isle, that Malaysia, as well as Singapore, have the same (English) admiralty jurisdiction and substantive maritime law. See Ocean Grain Shipping Pte Ltd. v. The Dong Nai (1996) 4 MLJ 454 (High Ct. - Johor Bahru).The Halcyon Isle has also been cited as authority for the categories of maritime liens in Malaysia. See The Ocean Jade (1991) 2 MLJ 385 (Malaysian High Ct.). No foreign maritime lien claim was asserted in the latter case, however. Israel The Supreme Court of Israel, in The Nadja S. (Griffin Corp. v. Koor Sachar) 44 (3) P.D. 45 (1990), was a decision in which each of the three judges took a different position. The President of the Supreme Court held that the foreign maritime lien for necessaries was a substantive right which should be governed by either the lex situs (the law of the place where the necessaries were supplied) or the lex loci contractus (the law of the place of the contract), with priorities governed by the lex fori (the law of the forum). A second judge held that both recognition and priorities should be governed by the lex causae, and that if those laws differed, the lex fori should govern priorities. The third judge held, as did the majority of the Privy Council in The Halcyon Isle, that the lex fori should apply to both recognition and ranking. (ICL pp. 579-580). X. National Legislation ChinaThe People's Republic of China applies the law of the forum to maritime liens under art. 272 of its Maritime Code 1993 (ICL p. 584). Sweden Under the Swedish Maritime Code 1994, chap. 3, sect. 51, Swedish law governs maritime liens and rights of retention in a vessel "referred to in this chapter" (i.e. a Swedish-registered vessel) when the maritime lien or right of retention is invoked before a "Swedish Authority". In the case of other vessels, the effect of a maritime lien, right of retention or similar right is determined by the law of the vessel's registry. Nevertheless, such right ranks after any maritime lien or right of retention provided for in chap. 3 and after any hypothec (ship mortgage) complying with the Liens and Mortgages Convention 1967 (to which Sweden is a party). Greece The Greek Code of Private Maritime Law at art. 9 subjects foreign maritime liens and claims to the law of the ship's flag (ICL pp. 582-583). The Netherlands The Netherlands Conflict of Maritime Laws Act, 1993 at art. 3(2) also provides that the law of the ship's registry (flag) governs the question of whether a maritime claim is protected by a lien, as well as the scope and consequences of such a lien. Moreover, even if the lien exists under the law of the flag, it will outrank a mortgage only if an equivalent lien would have done so in Dutch law. (ICL pp. 583-584). Reliance on the law of the flag is out of place in our contemporary world of flags of convenience, double-flagging, and flagging out, where the flag is only one contact (or connecting factor) among others, and should by no means be seen as a definitive indication of the properly applicable law of foreign maritime liens or claims against ships. XI. The Rome Convention, 1980 The Rome Convention (on conflict of law in contract) is binding on the European Union and thus in the United Kingdom since April 1, 1991. If suit were taken today in the U.K. upon the arrest of ship in the U.K. under the same events as the Halcyon Isle (i.e. repair of a ship in Brooklyn, U.S.A. under a U.S. contract calling for U.S. law), the U.K. court would apply U.S. law. This is because of arts. 3 or 4 (express or implied choice); arts. 1(2)(h), 10(1)© and 14 (procedure); and art. 10(1)© (consequences of a breach). Thus much of the air has been taken out of the Halcyon Isle balloon. The law of the flag, in respect of contractual liens, seems inconsistent with the basic conflict rules of arts. 3 and 4 of the Rome Convention 1980, which call for the law expressly or implicitly chosen by the parties or the law having the closest connection with the contract. (ICL pp. 580-581). XII. International Convention on Maritime Liens & Mortgages, 1993 The 1993 Convention is not in force and is unlikely to be, because its authors (against strong advice) did not take into consideration special legislative rights of various nations (MLC, 2 Ed., p. 214).XIII. Equity There can be gross inequities in respect of ship mortgages and maritime liens without uniform international law on the subject. Similarly, there are bound to be other commercial and maritime inequities without international uniformity in conflicts of law. XIV. Conclusions The world needs a proper convention on international maritime liens and mortgages and as well as a proper international convention on conflict of laws.
Maritime Liens and Claims
The essence is in the detail. We must be international in our outlook. We must be for change and improvement.
I. Introduction
(1) To understand conflicts of law, one must first establish the exact differences between two competing laws. Considerable detail is therefore given here of the lien and mortgage laws of the U.S. on the one hand and the U.K. and Canada on the other.
(2) In other words, conflict of laws means comparative law. And a study of comparative law means studying conflict of laws. (3) In this regard, it is noteworthy that Dicey's first edition (1896) was entitled not "Conflict of Laws" but "A Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws".II. Traditional Maritime Liens (ICL p. 539; MLC, 2 Ed., 59-60) Traditional maritime liens is a term used internationally to refer to maritime liens which rank ahead of maritime liens. Herewith are the essential characteristics of traditional maritime liens: 1) Arise with the claim. 2) Follow the ship, even after a bona fide sale (except a judicial sale). 3) Are secret -- need not be registered. 4) Rank ahead of a ship mortgage. 5) Are rights found in the codes of civilian jurisdictions.III. Ranking U.S. (ICL p. 540; MLC, 2 Ed., pp. 872-876) Ranking of liens differs from country to country and is the principal cause of the conflicts of law which arise in respect of maritime liens and ship mortgages. The American system of ranking is very original and out of step with most of the rest of the world.1) Special legislative rights (of governments) (wreck removal; St. Lawrence Seaway and Panama Canal tolls and damages; rights of detention, removal and destruction for pollution; rights of forfeiture and sale for various federal statutory offences (e.g. drug trafficking, illegal immigration, etc.); 2) Custodia legis and some court costs (e.g. costs of seizure and judicial sale and attorney's fees); 3) Preferred maritime liens: a) Wages of master and crew (including maintenance and cure),
Salvage (including contract salvage) and general average (cargo against the ship) c) Maritime torts (e.g. collision), including personal injury and death, property damage and cargo tort liens; d) Longshoremen (individuals, not stevedore company). e) U.S. contract maritime liens (necessaries) entered into before the filing of a U.S. preferred mortgage. This includes repairs, supply of bunkers, supplies, stevedores, towage, contract cargo damage liens and charterer's liens, etc. (and also including statutory maritime liens, e.g. for civil penalties); 4) Preferred U.S. ship mortgage liens, as of the date of filing, as well as preferred ship mortgages on foreign ships whose mortgages have been guaranteed under Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 U.S. Code Appx. sect. 1101 et seq. at sect. 1271 et seq.); 5) U.S. contract liens (necessaries) arising after the filing of the U.S. preferred ship mortgage (these are not preferred maritime liens); 6) Foreign ship mortgages (not guaranteed under Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936); 7) U.S. contract liens (other than necessaries) (e.g. contract cargo damage liens and charterers' liens) accruing after foreign ship mortgages; 8) Unregistered (i.e. non-preferred) mortgages and perfected, non-maritime liens (including tax liens and other Government claims which are subordinate to maritime liens); state chattel mortgages and liens and liens for maritime attachment; and foreign contract liens (e.g. U.K. or Canadian statutory rights in rem). IV. Who May Bind in the U.S.(ICL p. 541; MLC, 2 Ed., pp. 602-605). In the U.S., the charterer (and not merely the shipowner) is presumed to have authority to bind the ship for necessaries. If the charterer does not have authority to bind the ship, the supplier of necessaries must be informed in advance. The supplier need not inquire if there is Aa prohibition of lien clause@ in the charterparty or in the ship mortgage.V. Containers (MLC, 2 Ed., pp. 609-616) Containers must have been "delivered to" or "earmarked for" a particular ship and then loaded on that ship to give a right in rem in the U.K., The River Rima [1988] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 193 (H.L.). Similarly containers in the U.S. give a contract maritime lien if actually delivered to or earmarked for a particular ship and then loaded on the ship in question (in the 2nd Circuit - New York, 4th Circuit -Florida, 5th Circuit - Louisiana and Texas, and 9th Circuit - West Coast U.S.A. However in a Canadian case, Textainer v. Baltic Sh. 1995 AMC 840 (Fed. Ct. of Can. 1994), a lien was recognized, although the containers were not directed to the ship. There was a lien clause in the lease of the containers, nevertheless. On the other hand, more recently, in Holt Cargo Systems Inc. v. ABC Containerline N.V. (2000) 16 C.B.R.(4th) 188 (also reported sub nom. Holt Cargo Systems Inc. v. van Dooselare 2000 AMC 1124) (Fed. Ct. of Can.), it was held that such a contractual lien in a container lease "... has no special priority as against the claims of a third party, including the mortgagee." (C.B.R.(4th) at p. 217, AMC at p. 1146). The Court also reaffirmed that container rental claims "... could not be more than claims for necessaries under Canadian maritime law." (i.e. statutory rights in rem, rather than maritime liens) and therefore that such claims had "... no priority ahead of the mortgagee." (C.B.R.(4th) at p. 218, AMC at p. 1146).VI. Ranking in the U.K. and Canada ( ICL pp. 539-540; MLC, 2 Ed., pp. 884-890 and 892-897) Ranking of liens and mortgages in the U.K. and Canada is more traditional than in the U.S. and is as follows: 1) Special legislative rights; 2) Court costs (e.g. costs of seizure and judicial sale) and custodia legis; 3) Maritime liens salvage, damage (e.g. collision), wages. 4) Ship mortgages (registered); 5) Necessaries give statutory rights in rem: a) Do not follow the ship when sold, Only owner or beneficial owner may bind the ship in Canada for statutory rights in rem. c) In U.K., the owner, beneficial owner or demise charterer may bind the ship for statutory rights in rem. d) For bunkers, repairs, supplies, towage, etc. e) There is no statutory right in rem for stevedores in the U.K., but there is in Canada. f) Necessaries in Canada extend to goods and materials as well as services and insurance. Necessaries in the U.K. extend to goods and materials. g) Statutory rights in rem arise in U.K. upon issue of the writ (now called an "in rem claim form"). h) Statutory rights in rem arise in Canada upon arrest of the ship. VII. Four Major Decisions Four major decisions are noted here to illustrate how conflicts of maritime liens and mortgages have been solved. 1) Ioannis Daskalelis [1974] S.C.R. 1248, [1974] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 174, 1973 AMC 176 (Supr. Ct. of Can.) (ICL pp. 566-567). a) Greek ship has a Greek mortgage, i.e. foreign mortgage. Ship is repaired in Todd Shipyard, Brooklyn. c) Ship sails, avoiding possessory lien and U.S. maritime lien for repairs. d) Ship avoids arrest in U.S. on orders of mortgagee. e) Ship arrested in Canada. f) Supreme Court of Canada recognizes a foreign lien (the U.S. maritime lien for repairs) as a maritime lien, although no such maritime lien exists in Canadian law. Ranks the U.S. lien procedurally by Canadian lex fori, ahead of the mortgage. 2) Halcyon Isle [1980] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 325, 1980 AMC 1221, [1981] A.C. 221 (P.C.) (ICL pp. 570-573). a) British ship has a British mortgage (mortgage not recorded). Ship enters the same Todd Shipyard in Brooklyn and is repaired. c) Ship sails and avoids possessory lien and U.S. maritime lien for repairs. d) Mortgage is registered. e) Ship is arrested in Singapore. f) Privy Council applies the lex fori (3-2) and does not recognize the lien. In a strong dissenting decision, Lords Salmon and Scarman held as follows:"A maritime lien is a right of property given by way of security for a maritime claim. If the Admiralty Court has, as in the present case, jurisdiction to entertain the claim, it will not disregard the lien. A maritime lien validly conferred by the lex loci is as much part of the claim as is a mortgage similarly valid by the lex loci. Each is a limited right of property securing the claim. The lien travels with the claim, as does the mortgage: and the claim travels with the ship. It would be a denial of history and principle, in the present chaos of the law of the sea governing the recognition and priority of maritime liens and mortgages, to refuse the aid of private international law." (Emphasis added) ([1981] A.C. 221 at p. 250, [1980] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 325 at p. 339, 1980 AMC 1221 at p. 1249). They also held: "The question is - does English law, in circumstances such as these, recognise the maritime lien created by the law of the United States of America, i.e. the lex loci contractus where no such lien exists by its own internal law? In our view the balance of authorities, the comity of nations, private international law and natural justice all answer this question in the affirmative. If this be correct then English law (the lex fori) gives the maritime lien created by the lex loci contractus precedence over the mortgagees' mortgage. If it were otherwise, injustice would prevail. The ship-repairers would be deprived of their maritime lien, valid as it appeared to be throughout the world, and without which they would obviously never have allowed the ship to sail away without paying a dollar for the important repairs upon which the ship-repairers had spent a great deal of time and money and from which the mortgagees obtained substantial advantages." ([1981] A.C. 221 at pp. 246-247, [1980] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 325 at pp. 336-337, 1980 AMC 1221 at p. 1244). 3) Ocean Ship Supply v. Leah 729 F. 2d 971, 1984 AMC 2089 (4 Cir. 1984) (ICL p. 549). a) Greek ship obtains necessaries in Quebec City - January 1, 1980. August 1980, ship sold and registered in Honduras. c) Ship arrested in Charleston S.C. d) American Court recognizes the statutory right in rem of Canada and that it is not a maritime lien and is lost with the sale of the ship. e) Arrest and claim dismissed. 4) Marlex Petroleum v. Har Rai [1984] 2 F.C. 345, 1984 AMC 1649 (Fed. Ct. of Appeal); upheld [1987] 1 S.C.R. 57 (Supreme Ct. of Canada) (ICL pp. 567-568). a) Bunkers supplied in Los Angeles to a time chartered vessel flying the Indian flag. Bunkers not ordered by owner but supplier did not know of charterer's lack of authority (former 46 U.S. Code Appx. sect. 973, now 46 U.S. Code 31341 and 31342). c) Vessel arrested in Vancouver. d) U.S. maritime lien was recognized in Canada. e) Proceedings also in personam against the owner, but were dismissed. VIII. The New Zealand Experience (ICL 576-578) In The Betty Ott v. General Bills Ltd. [1992] 1 N.Z.L.R. 655, the New Zealand Court of Appeal held that on the basis of The Halcyon Isle (supra) (by which the Court was presumably bound), it could not recognize a foreign ship mortgage duly registered in Australia as equivalent to a New Zealand ship mortgage, because the mortgage was not registered in New Zealand. This was so, despite the fact that Australian ship mortgages are registered under terms and conditions very similar to those governing ship mortgage registration in New Zealand. The Australian mortgage was therefore held subordinate under New Zealand ranking to an equitable charge resulting from a debenture issue. The decision points up the absurd results to which The Halcyon Isle, as a general principle, can lead, as the minority in that decision foresaw. The Halcyon Isle was also followed in ABC Shipbrokers v. The Offi Gloria [1993] 3 N.Z.L.R. 576 (N.Z. High Ct.) and again in Fournier v. The Margaret Z [1999] 3 N.Z.L.R. 111 (N.Z. High Ct.). In an effort to counteract the effect of The Betty Ott, the New Zealand Parliament enacted sect. 70 of the Ship Registration Act 1992 (No. 89 of 1992), which provides for the recognition in New Zealand of foreign "instruments creating securities or charges" on ships, provided that such instruments are duly registered under the law of the vessel's flag. Such foreign securities or charges are also accorded the same priority as registered New Zealand ship mortgages. By treating all foreign-registered charges on ships as the equivalent of New Zealand ship mortgages, however, the statute fails to take account of the differing nature of these foreign charges among themselves and thus does a disservice to the conflict of laws. IX. Other Jurisprudence Canadian decisions (recognizing foreign maritime liens)1) Metaxas v.The Galaxias (No. 2) [1989] 1 F.C. 386, (1988) 19 F.T.R. 108 (Fed. Ct. of Can.) (ICL p. 568);2) Sembawang Reefer Lines (Bahamas) Ltd. v. Lina Erre (1990) 30 F.T.R. 31, [1990] ETL 35 (Fed. Ct. of Can.), reversed on other grounds (1990) 114 N.R. 270, (1991) 38 F.T.R. 240 (note) (Fed. Ct. of App.) (ICL p. 568); 3) Shibamoto & Co. v. Western Fish Producers Inc. [1991] 3 F.C. 214, (1991) 43 F.T.R. 1 (Fed. Ct. of Can,), upheld (1993) 145 N.R. 91 (Fed. Ct. of App.) (ICL p. 569); 4) Frisol Bunckering B.V. v. M/V Alexandria (1992) 47 F.T.R. 3 (Fed. Ct. of Can.) (ICL p. 569); 5) Holt Cargo Systems Inc. v. ABC Containerline N.V. [1997] 3 F.C. 187 at p. 202, (1997) 146 D.L.R. (4th) 736 at p. 745, 1997 AMC 2815 at pp. 2833-2834 (Fed. Ct. of Can.), upheld (1999) 239 N.R. 114, (1999) 173 D.L.R. (4th) 493, 1999 AMC 1486 (Fed. C.A.), upheld (2001) 207 D.L.R. (4th) 577, (2001) 280 N.R. 201 (S.C.C.). 6) Fraser Shipyard and Industrial Centre Ltd. v. Expedient Maritime Co. Ltd. (The Atlantis Two) (1999) 170 F.T.R. 1 at pp. 13-15, 23-24, 26-29 and 31-36, 2000 AMC 543 at pp. 550-551, 563-565, 567-570 and 573-580 (Fed. Ct. of Can. per Prothonotary Hargrave), varied by (1999) 170 F.T.R. 57, 2000 AMC 28 (Fed. Ct. of Can. per Rouleau J.); 7) Holt Cargo Systems Inc. v. ABC Containerline N.V. (2000) 16 C.B.R. (4th) 188 at pp. 206, 209-211 and 212 (also reported sub nom. Holt Cargo Systems Inc. v. van Dooselare 2000 AMC 1124 at pp. 1129-1130, 1139-1140 and 1141) (Fed. Ct. of Can.). 8) Bank of Scotland v. The Nel (2000) 189 F.T.R. 230 at p. 237, [2001] 1 F.C. 408 at p. 420 (Fed. Ct. of Can. per Hargrave, P.).9) Re Antwerp Bulk Carriers, N.V. (2001) 207 D.L.R. (4th) 612 at p. 625 (S.C.C.).But see also Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Petromar Inc. (2001) 209 D.L.R. (4th) 158, 283 N.R. 182 (Fed. C.A.), where the predominance of Canadian contacts led the Federal Court of Appeal to refuse to recognize and enforce the American maritime lien claim and to reverse the Federal Court Trial Division's decision reported at (2000) 187 F.T.R. 208. The Ioannis Daskalelis has also been cited with approval in other (non-conflicts) decisions in respect of Canadian maritime law on maritime liens and on ranking: 1) Ultramar Canada Inc. v. Pierson Steamships Ltd. (1982) 43 C.B.R.(N.S.) 9 at p. 12 (Fed. Ct. of Can.); 2) Western Stevedoring v. The Andalou Guney (1988) 23 F.T.R. 112 at p. 124. (Fed. Ct. of Can.); 3) Scott Steel v. The Alarisa [1996] 2 F.C. 883 at p. 893, (1996) 111 F.T.R. 81 at p. 86 (Fed. Ct. of Can. per Hargrave, P.). The Ioannis Daskalelis has also been cited in Canadian non-maritime decisions, including conflict of law decisions, such as: 1) Canron Inc. v. Ferrolab Ltée (1986) 7 B.C.L.R. (2d) 291 at p. 294 (British Columbia County Ct.);2) Re Sefel Geophysical Ltd. (1988) 62 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193 at p. 200, (1988) 54 D.L.R.(4th) 117 at p. 124 (Alberta Q.B.); 3) Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Canadian Commercial Bank (1992) 7 Alta. L.R.(3d) 390 at p. 394, (1992) 16 C.B.R.(3d) 147 at p. 151 (Altberta Q.B.); 4) Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Canadian Commercial Bank (1994) 23 Alta. L.R.(3d) 418 at p. 422, (1994) 121 D.L.R.(4th) 360 at p. 363 (Alberta Q.B.). American decisions (applying foreign law to foreign maritime liens and claims because of foreign contacts or express choice of law) 1) State of Israel v. M/V Nili 435 F.2d 242, 1971 AMC 428 (5 Cir. 1970), cert. denied 401 U.S. 994, 1971 AMC 1325 (1971) (ICL pp. 559-560) (recognition of foreign shipbuilder's mortgage); 2) Gulf Oil v. Creole Supply 596 F.2d 515, 1979 AMC 585 (2 Cir. 1979), on rehearing denied, 596 F.2d 522, 1979 AMC 1163 (2 Cir. 1979) (ICL p. 559) (foreign judicial sale and foreign ranking recognized as terminating U.S. supplier's maritime lien); 3) Forsythe International v. Ruth Venture 633 F.Supp. 74, 1986 AMC 621 (D. Ore. 1985) (ICL pp. 553-554) (English law applied to bunker supply in S. Africa); 4) Cantieri Navali Riuniti v. M/V Skyptron 802 F.2d 160, 1987 AMC 463 (5 Cir. 1986) (recognition that foreign mortgagee, by mortgage deed, had waived its preference over foreign maritime lienors, under art. 2 of Liens and Mortgages Convention 1926); 5) Chantier Naval Voisin v. M/Y Daybreak 677 F.Supp. 1563, 1989 AMC 151 (S.D. Fla. 1988) (ICL p. 556) (French law applied to French repair claim); 6) Swedish Telecom Radio v. M/V Discovery I 712 F.Supp. 1542, 1990 AMC 85 (S.D. Fla. 1988); on reconsideration 712 F.Supp. 1547, 1990 AMC 93 (S.D. Fla. 1989) (ICL pp. 556-557) (Swedish law applied to Spanish repair claim re repairs done in Spain); 7) Trinidad Foundry v. M/V Kas Camilla 776 F.Supp. 1558, 1991 AMC 2166 (S.D. Fla. 1991), affirmed, 966 F.2d 613, 1992 AMC 2636 (11 Cir. 1992) (ICL p. 563) (English law applied to Trinidad repair claim);8) North End Oil v. Ocean Confidence 777 F.Supp. 12, 1992 AMC 1067 (C.D. Cal. 1991) (ICL pp. 563-564) (English law, applicable by contract, governed U.S. bunker supplier's claim); 9) Sembawang Shipyard v. Charger 955 F.2d 983, 1993 AMC 1341 (5 Cir. 1992) (ICL) pp. 561-562) (Singapore law applied to Singapore repair claim); 10) North End Oil v. Norman Spirit 1993 AMC 88 (C.D. Cal. 1992) (ICL pp. 564-565) (English law, applicable by contract, governed U.S. bunker supplier's claim); 11) Isbrandtsen Marine Services, Inc. v. M/V Inagua Tania 93 F.3d 728, 1997 AMC 912 (summ.) (11 Cir. 1996) (foreign seamen allowed to intervene to assert foreign wage lien against U.S. judicial sale proceeds of ship); 12) First Marine Distributors, Inc. v. M/V Marylou II 1997 AMC 22 (D. Md. 1996) (English law, applicable by contract, governed claim for bunkers supplied in Egypt); 13) Heidmar, Inc. v. Anon. Ravennate 993 F.Supp. 990, 1998 AMC 47 (S.D. Tex. 1997), vacated in part on other grounds, 132 F.3d 264, 1998 AMC 982 (5 Cir. 1998) (English law, applicable by contract, defeated claim of U.S. maritime lien for breach of charterparty); 14) KLLM Transport Services, Inc. v. M/V Sea Eagle 1997 AMC 2045 (S.D. Fla. 1996) (Panamanian master's maritime wage lien recognized under Panamanian law, despite U.S. statute which grants U.S. maritime wage lien only to masters of U.S. documented vessels); 15) Garcia v. M/V Kubbar 1998 AMC 893 (N.D. N.Y. 1997) (Guatemalan law held applicable and recognized as granting no maritime lien for personal injury to Guatemalan longshoreman injured on Kuwaiti ship in Guatemala); 16) Ost-West-Handel Bruno Bischoff G.m.b.H. v. Project Asia Line, Inc. 970 F.Supp. 471, 1998 AMC 989 (E.D. Va. 1997) (foreign ship mortgage found valid under Liberian law and therefore entitled to priority as foreign preferred ship mortgage under U.S ranking); 17) Lion de Mer v. M/V Loretta D 1998 AMC 1410 (D. Md. 1998) (No maritime lien recognized, under either Greek or Liberian law, re supply of bunkers to time charterer of a Liberian ship in Greece); 18) Madredeus Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Century Bridge Chartering Co. Ltd. 2000 AMC 957 at p. 960 (S.D. Fla. 2000) (no maritime lien, and therefor no right to arrest ship under Supplemental Rule C, for unpaid bunkers, where bunker supply contract specified Hong Kong law, because that law, based on Asubstantive English maritime law@, recognizes only a statutory right in rem, and not a maritime lien, for supply of bunkers. Shipowner was entitled to invoke the choice of law clause to bar the maritime lien, even where the supply contract was concluded by a charterer); 19) Bender Shipbuilding & Repair Co., Inc. V. Drive Ocean V 2000 AMC 1958 at pp. 1965-1967 (S.D. Cal. 1998), aff=d 2000 AMC 1973 at p. 1974 (Editor=s Note) (9 Cir. 2000) (no maritime lien for misrepresentation and related tort claims concerning negotiation and performance of a time charterparty, where charterparty was subject to "the laws of the Province of British Columbia" (i.e. Canadian maritime law), where such claims give rise to no maritime lien); 20) Galehead, Inc. V. M/V Liman 2000 AMC 2689 (E.D. La. 2000) (No maritime lien for bunkers supplied in Pakistan, despite contrary judgment of a Belgian court, where bunker supply contract (not discovered at time of Belgian proceedings) provided for English law, which grants no such lien);21) Bolongon v. M/V Nor-Atlantic 2001 AMC 722 (E.D. La. 1999) (No maritime lien for unpaid insurance premiums where insurance contract between P. & I. club and vessel owner provided for English law, under which there is no maritime lien for necessaries, including insurance);22) Liverpool & London Steamship Protection and Indemnity Association Ltd. v. M/V Queen of Leman 2001 AMC 1357 (E. D. La. 2001) (English law governing P. & I. insurance policy precludes maritime lien for unpaid premiums being enforced in U.S., despite reference in the club rules to the right to pursue a lien for such premiums in any jurisdiction in accordance with local law, such reference being to local procedural law only). American decisions (applying American law to foreign maritime liens and claims because of U.S. contacts or because foreign law unproven) 1) Payne v. Tropic Breeze 423 F.2d 236, 1970 AMC 1850 (1 Cir. 1970), cert. denied sub nom. Samadjopoulos v. National Western Life Insurance Co. 400 U.S. 964, 1971 AMC 818 (1970) (ICL pp. 560-561); 2) Rainbow Line Inc. v. M/V Tequila 480 F.2d 1024, 1973 AMC 1431 (2 Cir. 1973) (ICL pp. 557-558); 3) Potash Co. of Canada v. M/V Raleigh 361 F.Supp. 120, 1973 AMC 2658 (D C.Z. 1973) (ICL p. 558 note 99); 4) Sasportes v. Sol de Copacabana 581 F.2d 1204, 1980 AMC 791 (5 Cir. 1978) (ICL p. 561); 5) Rayon Y Celanese v. M/V PHGH 471 F.Supp. 1363 (D. Ala. 1979); 6) Gulf Trading & Transportation Co. v. Hoegh Shield 658 F.2d 363, 1982 AMC 1138 (5 Cir. 1981), cert. denied 457 U.S. 1119, 1982 AMC 2108 (1982) (ICL p. 555);7) Gulf Trading & Transportation Co. v. M/V Tento 694 F.2d 1191, 1983 AMC 872 (9 Cir. 1982), cert. denied 461 U.S. 929, 1983 AMC 2109 (1983) (ICL pp. 558-559); 8) Cardinal Shipping v. Seisho Maru 744 F.2d 461, 1985 AMC 2630 (5 Cir. 1984) (ICL p. 560); 9) Tramp Oil v. Mermaid I 743 F.2d 48, 1985 AMC 459 (1 Cir. 1984), on remand, 630 F.Supp. 630, 1987 AMC 129 (D. P.R. 1986), affirmed 805 F.2d 42, 1987 AMC 866 (1 Cir. 1986) (ICL p. 561); 10) Exxon Corp. v. Central Gulf Lines 707 F.Supp. 155, 1989 AMC 2467 (S.D. N.Y. 1989), reconsideration denied, 717 F.Supp. 1029, 1989 AMC 2943 (S.D. N.Y. 1989), affirmed 904 F.2d 33, 1990 AMC 1816 (2 Cir. 1990), reversed on other grounds, 500 U.S. 603, 1991 AMC 1817 (1991), summary judgment granted, 780 F.Supp 191 at p. 193, 1992 AMC 1663 at p. 1666 (S.D. N.Y. 1991) (ICL p. 553);11) Castelan v. M/V Mercantil Parati 1991 AMC 2141 (D. N.J. 1991) (ICL pp. 562-563); 12) Arochem Corp. v. Wilomi 962 F.2d 496, 1992 AMC 2347 (5 Cir. 1992); 13) Espirito Santo Bank v. M/V Tropicana 1992 AMC 1672 (S.D. Fla. 1990), affirmed without 18) In re Eagle Geophysical, Inc. 2001 AMC 1808 (D. Del. in Bankr. 2001);19) Hawkspere Shipping Co. Ltd. v. 65 Bundles of Secondary Aluminum 178 F. Supp.2d 486, 2001 AMC 1826 (D. Md. 2001). Nota Bene: Even where foreign law applies to the recognition of the foreign maritime lien or claim, U.S. law always governs the ranking of the claims. See in particular:1) Mobile Marine Sales, Ltd. v. M/V Prodomos 776 F.2d 85, 1986 AMC 1337 (3 Cir. 1985); 2) Oil Shipping (Bunkering) B.V. v. Royal Bank of Scotland 817 F.Supp. 1254, 1993 AMC 1774 (E.D. Pa. 1993), affirmed 10 F.3d 1015, 1994 AMC 892 (3 Cir. 1993); 3) Banco de Credito Industrial, S.a. v. Tesoreria General 990 F.2d 827 at p. 832, 1993 AMC 2029 at p. 2034 (5 Cir. 1992); 4) Sunrise Shipping Ltd. V. M/V American Chemist 1999 AMC 2906 at p. 2918 (E.D. La. 1999); 5) Bender Shipbuilding & Repair Co., Inc. v. Drive Ocean V 2000 AMC 1973 at p. 1974 (9 Cir. 2000) (Editors Note) and other decisions cited there. American courts also generally recognize that valid foreign judicial sales terminate U.S. maritime liens on vessels. See in particular:1) Atlantic Ship Supply, Inc. v. M/V Lucy 392 F.Supp. 179, 1975 AMC 1153 (M.D. Fla. 1975), affirmed 553 F.2d 1009 (5 Cir. 1977) (Costa Rican judicial sale); 2) Gulf & Southern Terminal Corp. v. S.S. President Roxas 701 F.2d 1110, 1983 AMC 1521 (4 Cir. 1983), cert. denied 462 U.S. 1133, 1983 AMC 2109 (1983) (Mexican judicial sale); 3) S.C. State Ports Authority v. Silver Anchor, S.A. 23 F.3d 842, 1994 AMC 2463 (4 Cir. 1994) (Greek judicial sale). But see also Crescent Towing & Salvage Co., Inc. v. Anax Navigation Co., S.A. 40 F.3d 741, 1995 AMC 1106 (5 Cir. 1994) (Greek judicial sale not recognized, absent proof that sale extinguished U.S. maritime lien under Greek law); Thorsteinsson v. M/V Drangur 891 F.2d 1547, 1990 AMC 2478 (11 Cir. 1990) (no recognition of foreign judicial sale unless ship was actually sezied by the foreign court). American decisions applying forum non conveniens to foreign maritime liens and claims 1) Comoco Marine v. El Centroamericano 1984 AMC 1434 (D. Or. 1983) (ICL p. 554); 2) Belcher Co. v. Maratha Mariner 724 F.2d 1161, 1984 AMC 1679 (5 Cir. 1984) (ICL pp. 554-555); 3) Forsyth International (U.K.) Ltd. v. S.S. Penavel 630 F.Supp 61, (S.D. Ga 1985), affirmed without opinion, 786 F.2d 1180 (11 Cir. 1986); 4) Perez & Co. v. Mexico I 826 F.2d 1449, 1988 AMC 1930 (5 Cir. 1987) (ICL p. 557). Australia In Morlines Maritime Agency Ltd. & Ors v. The Skulptor Vuchetich 1997 AMC 1727, the Federal Court of Australia decided to follow The Halcyon Isle. South Africa The Halcyon Isle was followed in:1) The Andrico Unity 1989 (4) S.A. 325, 1989 AMC 1561 (S. African Supr. Ct., App. Div.), upholding 1987 (3) S.A. 794 (Cape of Good Hope Provincial Div.) (ICL p. 574); 2) Brady-Hamilton Stevedoring v. Kalantiao 1989 (4) S.A. 355, 1989 AMC 1597 (S. African Supr. Ct., App. Div.) (ICL pp. 574-575);3) Banco Exterior de Espana S.A. v. Government of Namibia 1999 (2) S.A. 434 (Namibia High Court). Cyprus The Halcyon Isle was followed in: Hassanein v. The Hellenic Island [1989] 1 C.L.R. 406 (Cyprus Supr. Ct.) (ICL pp. 575-576). Singapore Singapore followed The Halcyon Isle in The Andres Bonifacio (1993) 3 S.L.R. 521 (Singapore C.A.). The Halcyon Isle has also been invoked to establish that the categories of maritime liens in Singapore's maritime law are the same as those at English maritime law. See The Ohm Mariana ex Peony (1992) 2 S.L.R. 623 (Singapore High Ct.). No foreign maritime lien claim was asserted in this case, however. Malaysia The Malaysian High Court has held, on the basis of The Halcyon Isle, that Malaysia, as well as Singapore, have the same (English) admiralty jurisdiction and substantive maritime law. See Ocean Grain Shipping Pte Ltd. v. The Dong Nai (1996) 4 MLJ 454 (High Ct. - Johor Bahru).The Halcyon Isle has also been cited as authority for the categories of maritime liens in Malaysia. See The Ocean Jade (1991) 2 MLJ 385 (Malaysian High Ct.). No foreign maritime lien claim was asserted in the latter case, however. Israel The Supreme Court of Israel, in The Nadja S. (Griffin Corp. v. Koor Sachar) 44 (3) P.D. 45 (1990), was a decision in which each of the three judges took a different position. The President of the Supreme Court held that the foreign maritime lien for necessaries was a substantive right which should be governed by either the lex situs (the law of the place where the necessaries were supplied) or the lex loci contractus (the law of the place of the contract), with priorities governed by the lex fori (the law of the forum). A second judge held that both recognition and priorities should be governed by the lex causae, and that if those laws differed, the lex fori should govern priorities. The third judge held, as did the majority of the Privy Council in The Halcyon Isle, that the lex fori should apply to both recognition and ranking. (ICL pp. 579-580). X. National Legislation ChinaThe People's Republic of China applies the law of the forum to maritime liens under art. 272 of its Maritime Code 1993 (ICL p. 584). Sweden Under the Swedish Maritime Code 1994, chap. 3, sect. 51, Swedish law governs maritime liens and rights of retention in a vessel "referred to in this chapter" (i.e. a Swedish-registered vessel) when the maritime lien or right of retention is invoked before a "Swedish Authority". In the case of other vessels, the effect of a maritime lien, right of retention or similar right is determined by the law of the vessel's registry. Nevertheless, such right ranks after any maritime lien or right of retention provided for in chap. 3 and after any hypothec (ship mortgage) complying with the Liens and Mortgages Convention 1967 (to which Sweden is a party). Greece The Greek Code of Private Maritime Law at art. 9 subjects foreign maritime liens and claims to the law of the ship's flag (ICL pp. 582-583). The Netherlands The Netherlands Conflict of Maritime Laws Act, 1993 at art. 3(2) also provides that the law of the ship's registry (flag) governs the question of whether a maritime claim is protected by a lien, as well as the scope and consequences of such a lien. Moreover, even if the lien exists under the law of the flag, it will outrank a mortgage only if an equivalent lien would have done so in Dutch law. (ICL pp. 583-584). Reliance on the law of the flag is out of place in our contemporary world of flags of convenience, double-flagging, and flagging out, where the flag is only one contact (or connecting factor) among others, and should by no means be seen as a definitive indication of the properly applicable law of foreign maritime liens or claims against ships. XI. The Rome Convention, 1980 The Rome Convention (on conflict of law in contract) is binding on the European Union and thus in the United Kingdom since April 1, 1991. If suit were taken today in the U.K. upon the arrest of ship in the U.K. under the same events as the Halcyon Isle (i.e. repair of a ship in Brooklyn, U.S.A. under a U.S. contract calling for U.S. law), the U.K. court would apply U.S. law. This is because of arts. 3 or 4 (express or implied choice); arts. 1(2)(h), 10(1)© and 14 (procedure); and art. 10(1)© (consequences of a breach). Thus much of the air has been taken out of the Halcyon Isle balloon. The law of the flag, in respect of contractual liens, seems inconsistent with the basic conflict rules of arts. 3 and 4 of the Rome Convention 1980, which call for the law expressly or implicitly chosen by the parties or the law having the closest connection with the contract. (ICL pp. 580-581). XII. International Convention on Maritime Liens & Mortgages, 1993 The 1993 Convention is not in force and is unlikely to be, because its authors (against strong advice) did not take into consideration special legislative rights of various nations (MLC, 2 Ed., p. 214).XIII. Equity There can be gross inequities in respect of ship mortgages and maritime liens without uniform international law on the subject. Similarly, there are bound to be other commercial and maritime inequities without international uniformity in conflicts of law. XIV. Conclusions The world needs a proper convention on international maritime liens and mortgages and as well as a proper international convention on conflict of laws.
#8
Отправлено 18 August 2003 - 13:25
Гость-Sailor
Откуда это? Из какой книги?
kuropatka
BesNadeghny
Серж, мой телефон у тебя в личке.
Добавлено:
Кстати, эту тему тоже надо перетащить в "Транспортное право"
Откуда это? Из какой книги?
kuropatka
Цитата
Да, Кирилл, специфика. Будь она не ладна...Это как? Тоже морская специфика процесса?
BesNadeghny
Серж, мой телефон у тебя в личке.
Добавлено:
Кстати, эту тему тоже надо перетащить в "Транспортное право"
#10
Отправлено 19 August 2003 - 14:43
Цитата
можно поподробнейМне СОЮ заворачивает заявления об объявлении морского залога на судно с мотивировкой (дословно) ...в связи с отсутствием искового заявления и несоразмерности стоимости судна и заявленных сумм...
ссылки на нормы какие?
обжаловали? че там сказали?
ну исковое ладно - можно и накатать быстро, а про несоразмерность, на что ссылаются?
кстати, у нас пароход в Восточно очень лихо арестовывали когда надо было (правда, есть сомнения в неподкупности)
#11
Отправлено 19 August 2003 - 16:25
Jurmorist
А надо будет снова арестуем.
А чего подробней. мы с ним тута созвонились. Жара там. Вот и исчерпывающий ответ тебе на все идиотские вопросы.
Ты мне лучше ответить: где мои 1200?
А надо будет снова арестуем.
А чего подробней. мы с ним тута созвонились. Жара там. Вот и исчерпывающий ответ тебе на все идиотские вопросы.
Ты мне лучше ответить: где мои 1200?
#12
Отправлено 20 August 2003 - 10:42
Цитата
ссылки на нормы какие?
обжаловали? че там сказали?
Ссылки у них на единственную норму 388 КТМ РФ. Обжаловали в крайсуд. Ждёмс...
Цитата
про несоразмерность, на что ссылаются?
Ни на что... просто несоизмеримо и всё тут...
Цитата
Да, знаем мы Находкинский городской суд, бывали там неоднократно...кстати, у нас пароход в Восточно
Или у Вас АС ПК?Добавлено:
Цитата
BesNadeghnyЖара там. Вот и исчерпывающий ответ тебе на все идиотские вопросы.
Серый, я вчера только из процесса пришёл, читать было невмочь. Действительно у нас стоит изнурительная духота. Котелок совсем не варит. Я как всё переварю, обязательно тебе отпишу. Ты надолго в командировку?
#13
Отправлено 20 August 2003 - 12:08
Eugene
да, кстати, про "накатать иск" это я загнул - потому как может быть другая юрисдикция по морскому требованию
короче говоря, как я понял, они не хотят морское требование как самостоятельное требование рассматривать?
а арест рассматривают только как обеспечение гражданского иска в российском же процессе, отсюда и несоразмерность ...
так получается?
да офигели чтоли они вапще?
да, кстати, про "накатать иск" это я загнул - потому как может быть другая юрисдикция по морскому требованию
короче говоря, как я понял, они не хотят морское требование как самостоятельное требование рассматривать?
а арест рассматривают только как обеспечение гражданского иска в российском же процессе, отсюда и несоразмерность ...
так получается?
да офигели чтоли они вапще?
#14
Отправлено 20 August 2003 - 12:45
Цитата
а арест рассматривают только как обеспечение гражданского иска в российском же процессе, отсюда и несоразмерность ...
так получается?
Да именно так. Но насчёт афигели или нет. Я ссудьёй не спорю. Мы накатали жалобу вот ждёмс когда назначат слушание.
#15
Отправлено 26 August 2003 - 13:22
Цитата
Уважаемый коллега у меня сейчас тоже происходят тупники в суде только г. Невельска. Мне судья заявил ещё кручи, что морской залог должен рассматриваться в арбетраже.Да именно так. Но насчёт афигели или нет. Я ссудьёй не спорю. Мы накатали жалобу вот ждёмс когда назначат слушание.
Но это вроде пережили. сейчас подошли к томуже. что арест есть обеспечение предусмотренное ГПК.
Блогополучно судья тупит (Да не увидит она этот сайт а то процесс еще идет) и по самому залогу заявляя, что НЕТ практики КАК я должна принимать решение. Вот и спрашивается, что делать
Добавлено:
QUOTE
Мне СОЮ заворачивает заявления об объявлении морского залога на судно с мотивировкой (дословно) ...в связи с отсутствием искового заявления и несоразмерности стоимости судна и заявленных сумм...
Да простити дурака что такое СОЮ, тем более, что зеленоват
Добавлено:
Eugene
кстати у ВАс случаем дело не по "Никон Корпенко".
Слышал во Владике было таки дело по морскому залогу.
Или это оно или через знакомых найдёте. Если найдёте практикой поделитись
#16
Отправлено 26 August 2003 - 13:55
Цитата
что такое СОЮ
СОЮ- это суд общей юрисдикции
Цитата
Нет.случаем дело не по "Никон Корпенко".
#17
Отправлено 02 September 2003 - 12:23
[QUOTE]СОЮ- это суд общей юрисдикции
Спасибо разъяснили.
да хотелось бы узнать как у вас дело разрешилось.
удалось параход продать или нет???
Спасибо разъяснили.
да хотелось бы узнать как у вас дело разрешилось.
удалось параход продать или нет???
#18
Отправлено 06 September 2003 - 11:08
Цитата
Jurmoristкороче говоря, как я понял, они не хотят морское требование как самостоятельное требование рассматривать?
а арест рассматривают только как обеспечение гражданского иска в российском же процессе, отсюда и несоразмерность ...
так получается?
да офигели чтоли они вапще?
Да, дружище, наверное они офигели, поскольку в краевом суде нам далдонят тоже самое: "Покажите где это написано в ГПК? Если не написано, то свободны... Пишите иски... и ходатайствуйте о применении обеспечительных мер в порядке главы 13 ГПК РФ... Вот чо можно сказать... Одни маты на языке...
#19
Отправлено 17 April 2014 - 13:42
У нас общий суд арестовал судно по 388 по искам экипажа, ничего сложного. Но ведь морской залог (367КТМ) и арест (388) разные вещи, первое способ обеспечения обязательств, второе обеспечительная мера. Поскольку арест судна произошел в России, применимое право теперь Российское - это плюс.
Теперь в арбитраже нужен именно морской залог, т.к. исковые требования не к собственнику, а фрахтователю. Задолженность по портовым сборам. Положения о морском залоге позволяют реализовать судно, находящееся во фрахте, если должник фрахтователь. Оба судовладельца оффшорные, поэтому других вариантов нет.
Подскажите, механизм взыскания долга за счет заложенного судна? Я так понимаю, что мне нужно заявить иск о взыскании задолженности и об обращении взыскания на заложенное имущество, право залога мотивировать ст. 367 КТМ. Все в один иск же прокатит?
И эти извещения, судебные, а также предусмотренные 386 КТМ, там 4 страны блин разные: фрахтователь (Болгария), собственник (Белиз), страна флага (Сент-Винцент), место нахождения (хоть тут Россия). С них как-то можно съехать? Я имею ввиду конвенции 1965, 1961, где по полгода ждать ответы, переводы. Хозяева-то хохлы русскоговорящие в Одессе сидящие и на письма на русском языке отвечающие (иногда).
Сообщение отредактировал Fleus: 17 April 2014 - 13:43
#20
Отправлено 18 April 2014 - 04:06
Fleus сказал(а) 17 Апр 2014 - 07:42:
У нас общий суд арестовал судно по 388 по искам экипажа, ничего сложного.
Ну это Вам только кажется....
Fleus сказал(а) 17 Апр 2014 - 07:42:
Теперь в арбитраже нужен именно морской залог, т.к. исковые требования не к собственнику, а фрахтователю. Задолженность по портовым сборам
У ВАс коммерческий арбитраж или АС?
Fleus сказал(а) 17 Апр 2014 - 07:42:
Положения о морском залоге позволяют реализовать судно, находящееся во фрахте, если должник фрахтователь. Оба судовладельца оффшорные, поэтому других вариантов нет.
Варианты есть всегда,
#21
Отправлено 21 April 2014 - 16:05
АС краевой.
Варианты? Например? Я про реальные варианты взыскания долга, а не про судебное решение. Буду рад если объясните как взыскать долг с фрахтователя, который нажил кучу расходов в порту, если у него ничего нет, не было и не будет? Судно брошено, судовладелец его выкупать не будет. Общая авария и морской залог обеспечиваются судном. Что еще?
Ох, если бы кто подсказал как солидарно взыскать с судовладельца и фрахтователя долги фрахтователя по портовым расходам, которые понес агент. Сам уже к общей аварии склоняюсь, т.к. услуги в порту осуществлялись организациями порта, а не агентом, т.е. перед агентом неосновательное обогащение, авансирование получается фрахтователя, а не портовые сборы. С портом мы судиться не собираемся, себе дороже.
Сообщение отредактировал Fleus: 21 April 2014 - 16:12
#22
Отправлено 18 May 2015 - 14:47
Eugene сказал(а) 17 Апр 2014 - 22:06:
Ну это Вам только кажется....
Нет, это так делается, судно арестовал и арбитраж и сою, арестовано уже больше года, по новостям даже показывали.
НО. Решение о взыскании АС уже тоже есть, но взыскивают с фрахтователя, который оффшор. Такое решение не позволяет реализовать судно, тк оно принадлежит арендодателю, который вроде как не при делах.
Была позиция по обязанности собственника содержать судно; и по убыткам (потеря денежных средств) подводилось по морской залог.
Суд указал по первому моменту :что с содержанием судна долг не связан, а возник в рамках агентского договора (хотя долг за стоянку у причала. Чем не содержание мля?); по второму моменту: что в статье про морской залог имеется в виду ущерб - типа аварии.
Очень прошу помочь с позицией в апелляции. Желательно практикой
Сообщение отредактировал Fleus: 18 May 2015 - 14:49
#23
Отправлено 20 May 2015 - 06:38
Fleus сказал(а) 18 Май 2015 - 08:47:
Такое решение не позволяет реализовать судно, тк оно принадлежит арендодателю, который вроде как не при делах.
Вот-вот... Мы это уже проходили... Удачи... 
#24
Отправлено 21 May 2015 - 17:15
Eugene сказал(а) 20 Май 2015 - 00:38:
Fleus сказал(а) 18 Май 2015 - 08:47:
Такое решение не позволяет реализовать судно, тк оно принадлежит арендодателю, который вроде как не при делах.
Вот-вот... Мы это уже проходили... Удачи...
Я не спрашивал кто что проходил, а просил помочь. Тролить это проще всего
Количество пользователей, читающих эту тему: 1
0 пользователей, 1 гостей, 0 анонимных
