The International Convention Relating to the Arrest of Seagoing Ships was signed in Brussels almost 30 years ago.1 The Administration of Justice Act 1956,2 giving partial effect to the obligations of the United Kingdom as a signatory to the Convention,3 has been on the statute-book for a quarter of a century.4 In that time, because of the confusion5 which has resulted from the partial implementation of the Convention by the 1956 Act, a number of vessels have either found themselves wrongly arrested or fortuitously at liberty.

Mr Justice Sheen’s interpretation of the provisions of s. 3(4) of the 1956 Act has recently6 added The Maritime Trader to the number of the more fortuitous. The decision has also drawn attention to the gaps in the maritime law of the U.K. which are the result of the Government’s failure to fully implement the provisions of the 1952 Convention.

The facts of the case are relatively straightforward. The company MTO owned all of the shares in the MTS company. In February, 1976, MTS took delivery direct from the builders of the vessel Maritime Trader. More than four years later, in March, 1980, MTO chartered the vessel Antaios on demise-charter from the plaintiffs. During the course of the charter large sums had become due from MTO to the plaintiffs. The charter-party provided for disputes to be referred to arbitration in London according to English law. The plaintiffs’ solicitors had reason for thinking that MTO were in financial difficulty and had no assets within the jurisdiction. In order to obtain security, the plaintiffs, basing their claims on the provisions of s. 1(1)(h) A.J.A. 19567