When arrest is contemplated the first thing to be considered is whether the cause of action confers a maritime lien or merely a right in rem. If the former, the procedure is greatly simplified as the lien attaches to the ship herself forthwith and travels with her irrespective of any change of ownership which accordingly need not be considered. But if there is no maritime lien the ownership (1) at the time the cause of action arose and (2) at the time of issue of Writ has to be investigated and must coincide.

Substantially, the difference between a maritime lien and a right in rem is that the latter does not affect the ship herself until appropriate proceedings are instituted. Under the decision in The Monica S. [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 113 that is the effective time.

The causes in which maritime liens arise in English law are the following:

1. Bottomry and respondentia. 2. Collision damage. 3. Salvage. 4. Seamen’s wages. 5. Master’s wages and disbursements (Statutory). 6. Fees and expenses of the Receiver of Wreck (M.S.A. 1894 s. 567 (2)). 7. Damage sustained by the owner or occupier of lands by means of which assistance is rendered to a wreck. (M.S.A. s. 513 (2)). 8. Costs incurred by a local authority in burying carcases washed or thrown over from a vessel. (Diseases of Animals Act 1894 s. 46) (Price’s Law of Maritime Liens 1940, p. 2).

The writer’s experience is that the principal causes of action calling for arrest are in respect of:

1. Collision. 2. Salvage. 3. Towage. 4. Necessaries — to use the old term. 5. Damage to cargo.

For 1 and 2 there is a maritime lien; for 3, 4 and 5 there is no maritime lien but a right in rem.

Here it may be noted that “escorting services” not being salvage have been held to be in the nature of “Towage” under the Administration of Justice Act 1956 s. 1 (1) (k) — The Leoborg [1962] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 146 — and cash advances to purchase necessaries are within (m) Robb, Moore & Neill Ltd. v. The Fairport (No. 5) [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 162 and agents’ own fees are within (p) The Westport (No. 3) [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 342. “Services supplied”, i.e., watermen’s duties and mooring and unmooring and conveying crew have been held to be necessaries within para. (h) of s. 1 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1956 as the whole of the services in question were based on the use of motor boats owned and operated by plaintiffs Alan James Corps and Rodney Francis Corps (trading as Corps Bros.) v. The Queen of the South (Owners); Port of London Authority (Interveners) [1968] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 182.

1. Issue writ, and at the same time if in a provincial Registry request the Registry to telephone the Principal Registry, London, to ascertain if there is a