In an earlier article1 the writer discussed generally the novel and far-reaching provisions of s. 3(6)(7) of the South African Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983 (“the Act”). The subsections in essence provide that an action in rem may be brought by the arrest of an “associated ship” instead of the wrongdoing ship in respect of which the maritime claim arose.2 It was submitted in the earlier article that various difficulties attend both the construction and implementation of the subsections. One such difficulty was whether the provisions are retrospective in operation so that an associated ship instead of the ship in respect of which the maritime claim arose may be arrested notwithstanding that such a claim arose before the date of commencement of the Act. And, as was mentioned in the earlier article, conflicting judgments had been delivered by the Admiralty Court on this matter. In The Kyoju Maru 3 Leon, J., held that, although s. 3(6)(7) created a new right, it was fallacious to treat this right as if it were a new cause of action. He said that these provisions merely provide a remedy whereby an existing claim may be enforced. They are thus procedural in nature and hence retrospective in operation. But a contrary decision was reached in The Berg 4 by Milne, J.P., who delivered the majority judgment. He held that, first, s. 3(6) created a new right and not merely a new remedy. It imposed an obligation upon persons who had no obligation before the commencement of the Act. Thus the provision referred to a matter of substantive rights and hence was not retrospective in operation. Secondly, said the Judge President, if s. 3(6) were to be applied retrospectively, it would interfere with vested rights with a vengeance.5