In recent years, ship arrest in South Africa is on its rise, which incorporated the concept of associated ship arrest. This brings big risk to innocent ship owners when they have nothing to do with the maritime claim but their ships are considered as “associated” under South Africa legal system. Below is a brief introduction of ship arrest regimes in different jurisdictions and keep you updated with ship arrest issue in South Africa.
In PRC, Arrest of ship is governed by the domestic law, mainly the Special Maritime Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, 2000 ( “SMPL” ). According to Art.23 of SMPL, “…A maritime court may arrest other ships owned by the shipowner, bareboat charterer, time charterer or voyage charterer who is held responsible for a maritime claim, when the arrest is executed, with the exception of the claims related to ownership or possession of the ship.” It can be seen that arrest of associated ship is generally not allowed but sister ship can be arrested. However, ship arrest is not easy in PRC. The documentation requirement is strict and complex while counter-security is normally necessary. This is not good news to the claimants who want to get maritime claims paid.
Hong Kong and Singapore actually have similar regimes for ship arrest. Both are popular transshipment ports in the world and thus there are many ships passing through Hong Kong and Singapore. It seems to have higher chance to catch the ship. For ship arrest, both are convenient for the claimants in comparison to PRC. Though associated ship arrest is still not allowed in both, sister ship can be arrested without the requirement of counter-security. The documentation and procedure is more simple and efficient, which could be done in several hours with the assistance of lawyers.
South Africa is famous for the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 1983, which introduced associated ship arrest provisions as an extension of the English sister ship provisions. The South African provisions are more extensive in that they permit a piercing of the corporate veil. It permits a claimant to arrest a vessel other than the one in respect of which the claim arose, providing that the claimant is able to show that there exists requisite “common control” between the owner of the so-called “ship concerned” and the owner of the associated ship.
The recent judgment of Blignault J in the Cape (in the matter of Gulf Sheba Shipping Ltd v mv “F Elephant” ) has extended this deeming provision further than some thought it could go. The court found that the phrase “if at any time a ship was the subject of a charter-party” , which introduces the deeming provision, has the effect of permitting a claimant to arrest an allegedly associated ship under the control of a former charterer of the ship concerned even in respect of a claim against that charterer which arose after the charter-party had come to an end. Leave to appeal this judgment was refused and it presently stands as binding authority in the Cape and persuasive authority in the other Admiralty courts within the South African federal system.
See attached file : ALCO20120017Ship Arrests-Sister ship and Associated ship.pdf
船舶扣押 – 姐妹船与联营船
近年来，由于南非引入了联营船扣押的概念，越来越多的船舶在南非被依当地法律扣押。这就为船东带来了巨大的风险，尤其是当船东与一海事请求无关，但其船舶在南非的法律制度下被认为是该海事请求所涉船舶的联营船。以下是一些不同国家地区的扣船制度之介绍，和南非关于扣船问题的最新进展。
在中国内地的法律中，扣船是主要由其国内法中的2000年海事特别程序法来规制的。根据该法第23条， “……海事法院可以扣押对海事请求负有责任的船舶所有人、光船承租人、定期租船人或者航次租船人在实施扣押时所有的其他船舶，但与船舶所有权或者占有有关的请求除外。” 可以从该条文中看出联营船的扣押在中国法下是不被允许的，而姐妹船则是属于可以被扣押的船舶范围。但要指出的是，在中国法下扣船并不是一件容易的事情。根据海事特别程序法的规定，海事请求人必须提供的文件及证据不仅繁冗并且要求严格。同时，反担保一般是必须的。这对于想要通过扣押船舶来促使海事请求得到实现的请求人来说并非一个好消息。
香港和新加坡则有着类似的扣船制度。两者都是航运界有名并常用的转运枢纽，因此很多船舶都会选择在香港或新加坡停靠。这也使得在这两个地方捕捉到船舶并扣押的几率可能会比较高。就扣船来说，香港和新加坡的法律机制都使海事请求人能比在中国内地更方便地扣押船舶。尽管依旧是允许姐妹船的扣押而不允许联营船的扣押，但两地均不要求提供反担保。文件证据和程序的要求也相对更加简便快捷，在律师的帮助下可能几个小时就能完成手续。
南非以其颁布的1983海事管辖规则法典而著名，该法典引入了联营船扣押作为英国法下姐妹船的延伸概念。南非的法律允许揭开法人的面纱，因此可扣押的船舶范围更加广泛。海事请求人若能证明在与海事请求有关的船舶所有人与据称联营船的所有人之间存在必要的 “共同控制” 关系，那么请求人就被允许扣押除与海事请求涉及的船舶之外的另一艘所谓的联营船。
最近在好望角由Blignault法官审判的Gulf Sheba Shipping Ltd v mv “F Elephant” 案将1983法典下的扣押船舶的范围更加的扩大了。法院在法典条文中发现了 “如果该船舶曾在任何时间是租约的标的物” 的表述，此种表述意味着海事请求人可以扣押的联营船包括海事请求所涉及的船舶的前承租人控制的船舶，即使此针对该承租人的海事请求在前租约结束之后才产生。对于该判决的上诉请求被驳回了，因此该案例在好望角地区有着法律权威而在南非联邦下的其他海事法院也是具备建议性质。
以上由 ANDREW LIU & CO.,LTD 编译，应以英文为准！
详细信息请参阅附件。
