Marina Developments Limited v Owner(s) of SY Explorer

For a claim for dock charges or dues, the in rem jurisdiction under sections 20 and 21 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 is confined to the dock charges or dues of the particular ship in connection with which the claim arises. A person’s contractual liability for charges incurred by several vessels does not make all those charges charges of one arrested vessel. The statutory phrase requiring the claim to arise in connection with a ship must therefore be applied by reference to the precise category of maritime claim, rather than by adopting a broad connection based on the debtor’s overall liability.

Marina Developments Limited claimed approximately £25,830 in berthing fees arising from the berthing of 14 vessels participating in the 2023 Ocean Globe Race, including SY EXPLORER. The defendant’s vessel was arrested.

The defendant applied to challenge the Admiralty jurisdiction, strike out the claim and secure the release of SY EXPLORER. The court first rejected challenges based on whether berthing was free and whether the defendant contracted personally or as agent for Ocean Frontiers Pty Limited. The remaining issue was whether the in rem claim against SY EXPLORER could include fees attributable to the other vessels.

1. The court rejected the challenges to the contractual basis of the claim. The alleged agreement to provide free berthing was scarcely arguable. The defendant’s correspondence indicated that fees were payable and that a quotation had been requested. It was also reasonably, and strongly, arguable that he contracted personally. The sign-off referring to OGR did not, without more, establish agency for Ocean Frontiers Pty Limited, which was not shown to have authority to contract with the claimant.

2. The claim fell within the Admiralty jurisdiction under section 20(2)(n) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, concerning claims in respect of dock charges or dues. Such a claim does not give rise to a maritime lien and therefore does not proceed under section 21(3), but it may proceed in rem if section 21(4) is satisfied.

3. Section 20(2)(n) must be understood as referring to dock charges or dues of a ship. Under section 21(4), the phrase requiring the claim to arise in connection with a ship is interpreted narrowly by reference to the particular category of maritime claim. The relevant ship was therefore the vessel whose dock charges or dues generated the claim.

4. The fees attributable to the other 13 vessels were not transformed into dock dues of SY EXPLORER merely because the defendant was alleged to be personally liable for the entire sum, or because SY EXPLORER was said to be the lead vessel. The claimant could bring separate in rem claims against the relevant vessels, while the balance remained capable of being pursued in personam.

5. The reasoning in The Alexandrea was entitled to considerable respect and was consistent with The Eschersheim and The Lloyd Pacifico. The defendant succeeded on the remaining jurisdictional challenge. The in rem claim against SY EXPLORER was confined to the £2,171.36 attributable to that vessel.

The judgment records two stages of the defendant’s application dated 12 June 2024. On 8 November 2024 the court rejected the challenges based on the contractual relationship and the defendant’s capacity. On 20 December 2024 it allowed the remaining jurisdictional challenge concerning fees attributable to other vessels.