Belfry Marine Ltd v Palm Base Maritime SDN BHD (The ‘Heavy Metal’) (2000) (1) SA 286 - Cape Provincial Division (Comrie J) - 7 May 1999

Admiralty practice - Application by owner of arrested vessel for counter security in respect of proposed action against arresting party for wrongful arrest - Whether applicant had shown that arresting party did not have ‘reasonable and probable cause’ for arrest - Whether quantum of security demanded by arresting party was excessive

The claimant, Palm Base Maritime, caused the vessel Heavy Metal to be arrested to provide security for a claim in arbitration proceedings which the claimant intended bringing against D Co in England, arising out of an alleged breach of a sale agreement whereby D Co had agreed to sell the vessel Sea Sonnet by Dahlia Maritime Ltd (‘Dahlia’) to the claimant. The alleged breach related to clause 11 of the sale agreement which provided that the Sea Sonnet should be delivered ‘with class fully maintained, free of recommendations and with continuous survey cycles completed up to date of delivery’. The arrest of the Heavy Metal was in terms of section 5(3) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983 (‘the 1983 Act’). The arrest was also an ‘associated ship’ arrest. At the time of the arrest the Heavy Metal was owned by the Belfry Marine (‘Belfry’). The claimant alleged in the arrest proceedings that the Heavy Metal was an ‘associated’ ship within the contemplation of sections 3(6) and 3(7) of the 1983 Act.