Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act—interpretation of phrase “when the maritime claim arose”

The MV Pearl of Fujairah was sold by the second respondent, Dry Bulk Maritime Ltd, to the appellant, who took delivery on 20 October 2005. The condition of the vessel was such that the appellants considered that the memorandum of agreement relating to the sale had been breached, in particular, that the vessel was not delivered and taken over in substantially the same condition as when inspected, that the vessel was not delivered “with her present BV class maintained, free of outstanding recommendations and average damage affecting her present class at the time of delivery” and that, in accordance with a term implied by the English Sale of Goods Act 1979, s 14, the vessel was not of a satisfactory quality or fit for the purpose for which it was sold. Furthermore, the appellants alleged that misrepresentations were made by the second respondent relating to the true condition of the vessel and its operating speed. These claims were to be arbitrated in London; and, in order to provide security for the arbitration, the appellants secured the arrest of the MV Cape Courage, as an associated ship of the MV Pearl of Fujairah, in accordance with the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act.2 The MV Cape Courage was owned by the first respondent, Qannas Shipping Co, which was controlled by the same persons that controlled Dry Bulk Maritime Ltd. The respondents successfully challenged the arrest of the MV Cape Courage, arguing that, at the time the maritime claim arose against Dry Bulk Maritime Ltd, it did not own the MV Pearl of Fujairah, which was by then owned the the appellants.3 The question on appeal was whether the court a quo correctly set aside the arrest of the MV Cape Courage, which turned on the interpretation of the phrase “the time the maritime claim arose” in the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act, s 37(a).