A ship may be seized either in execution, or in a large number of forms of distress, for liabilities arising from the vessel itself or in respect of the general liabilities of its owner. Despite the varied powers of bailiffs and others to seize vessels, their detailed rights and responsibilities in the course of that process are little discussed, either in texts on maritime law or on the laws of distress. This article aims to start to remedy that neglect with a survey of the many powers of seizure and a discussion of their features and interaction.

The power of distress (the seizure of chattels to enforce monetary liabilities or penalties) is a remedy actively promoted by statute in England and Wales. Although many may feel it to be outdated, it is clearly seen as expeditious and effective by Parliament, which has given many bodies the power to levy distress to enforce sums due to them. A considerable body of statutes exists allowing distress upon ships, yet it is an area where there is almost nothing written and virtually no reported case law. It is nonetheless a field still capable of generating dispute worthy of judicial attention, as the judicial review case R. v. Carrick District Council, ex p. Pankerd 1 recently demonstrated. This article consequently proposes to outline and examine the present law, in part arguing by analogy from other forms of distress in order to fill uncertain areas.

Ships can become liable to seizure by bailiffs in England and Wales for a surprisingly wide range of liabilities. Besides powers to seize ships as chattels in distress for rent,2 in statutory distraint for taxes, fines etc. and in execution of judgments,3 there are the following statutory powers specifically permitting the seizure of ships for maritime related liabilities: