Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
IN DEFENSE OF THE HALCYON ISLE
Not all North American lawyers are critical of the decision of the Privy Council in The Halcyon Isle, although appearances may be deceiving, especially to readers of this Quarterly.
1
More than a century ago, the Supreme Court of the United States adopted as a choice-of-law rule that a vessel could be seized in connection with a foreign maritime claim if seizure were authorized for a claim of the same nature both by the law of the forum and by the applicable foreign law of the place under which the claim arose.2 Since seizure of a vessel was authorized by United States law only for claims giving rise to maritime liens, the foreign claim sued on had to be the sort of claim which would carry with it a maritime lien under U.S. law. However, it was not necessary that the foreign claim have maritime lien status under the governing foreign law; it was enough if the foreign law simply gave a right to arrest. Thus, in The Maggie Hammond,3 a suit for breach of a contract for carriage of goods from the United Kingdom to Canada, the claim was governed by English law. Such a claim gave rise to a maritime lien under American law and also to a right to arrest
1. See N. J. Healy and J. Scowcroft, “United States Admiralty and Shipping Law—Recent Developments” [1986] 3 LMCLQ 350, 352–53; D. R. Owen, “U.S. Maritime Liens and the New Arrest and Attachment Rules” [1985] 4 LMCLQ 424, 427; W. Tetley, Maritime Liens and Claims (1985) 545–50. It is also reported that sentiment in Australia is against the decision. Australian Law Reform Comm’n, “Civil Admiralty Jurisdiction” (Report No. 33) para. 123 (1986).
2. The Maggie Hammond, 76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 435 (1869); see also Ocean Ship Supply v. M.V. Leah, 729 F.2d 971, 1984 A.M.C. 2089 (4th Cir., 1984); The Woudrichem, 278 Fed. 568 (E.D.N.Y. 1921).
3. 76 U.S. (9 Wall.) 435 (1869).
152