The 1956 Act implemented as part of the domestic law the treaty obligations of the United Kingdom under the International Convention Relating to the Arrest of Seagoing Ships signed at Brussels on 10 May 1952 (the Arrest Convention).
Held: The fundamental rule for the arrest of a ship under the provisions of the Arrest Convention is that the right to arrest exists only if the claim arose in respect of a ‘particular ship’ and the owner was liable in respect of a maritime claim relating to that ship.
Lord Diplock explained the purpose and effect of the Arrest Convention, saying: ‘The purpose of that Convention was to provide uniform rules as to the right to arrest seagoing ships by judicial process to secure a maritime claim against the owner of the ship. Article 1 defined by reference to their subject matter various classes of maritime claim in respect of which alone a right of arrest was to be exercisable; while articles 2 and 3 granted and confined the right of arrest to either (a) the particular ship in respect of which a maritime claim falling within one or more of those classes arose or (b) any other ship owned by the person who was, at the time when the maritime claim arose, the owner of the particular ship.
The provisions of article 3 represented a compromise between the wide powers of arrest available in some of the civil law countries (including for this purpose Scotland) in which jurisdiction to entertain claims against a defendant could be based on the presence within the territorial jurisdiction of any property belonging to him, and the limited powers of arrest available in England and other common law jurisdictions, where the power to arrest was exercisable only in respect of claims falling within the Admiralty jurisdiction of the court and based upon a supposed maritime lien over the particular ship in respect of which the claim arose.’
Where a statute was passed in order to give effect to an international convention, if the statute and the convention differ in their language, the statute should be construed in the same sense as the convention ‘if the words of the statute are reasonably capable of bearing that meaning’.
Judges:
Diplock, Simon of Glaisdale, Kilbrandon, Salmon and Edmund-Davies LL
Citations:
[1976] 1 WLR 430, [1976] 2 Lloyds Rep 1
Statutes:
Admralty Act 1956, International Convention Relating to the Arrest of Seagoing Ships signed at Brussels on 10 May 1952
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Currie v M’Knight HL 16-Nov-1896
The maritime law administered by Courts of Admiralty in England and Scotland is the same, and the doctrine of maritime lien for damages is part of that law.
In order that a maritime lien should attach to a ship for damages done to another, . .
Cited by:
Approved – Samick Lines Co Ltd v Owners of The Antonis P Lemos HL 2-Jan-1985
The House was asked as to the effect of the section.
Held: Since the provisions of the statute under consideration were designed to give domestic effect to an international convention, a broad and liberal construction should be given to them . .
Cited – Fiona Trust and Holding Corporation and others v Privalov and others CA 24-Jan-2007
The court was asked whether when contracts have been induced by bribery and have been rescinded on discovery of the bribery, that constitutes a dispute which can be determined by arbitration in the context of a common form of arbitration clause.
Cited – The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and Others v Meltwater Holding Bv and Others ChD 26-Nov-2010
The claimant newspapers complained of the spidering of the web-sites and redistribution of the materials collected by the defendants to its subscribers. The defendants including the Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA) denied that they . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Transport
Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.248212
