Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
REGISTRABILITY OF LIENS ON SUB-FREIGHT: THE LAST WORD OR NOT
Ian Teo*
Duncan v Diablo
The concept of registration of charges over a company’s assets exists in many jurisdictions. Non-registration often means that the charge is void as against the liquidator (and creditors) of the company. An issue which has engaged English lawyers for some time is whether a lien on sub-freight (or sub-hire) is registrable. There are competing theories on the nature of a lien on sub-freights, which in turn impact on its registrability as a charge. Not unlike the mythical Hydra, this lien has two heads. One head says it is a sui generis personal contractual right of interception (and, being contractual, is not a registrable charge). The other says it is an equitable assignment by way of a floating charge (and as such registrable). For three decades, these two heads battled in the English courts, and the equitable assignment by way of a floating charge “head” won every battle.1 However, each time the “personal contractual right” head was cut off, it would grow again.
The issue again came before the courts recently, not in England, but in Singapore. As reported previously, the Singapore High Court in Duncan, Cameron Lindsay and another v Diablo Fortune Inc and another matter
2 considered the issue for the first time in Singapore
* Adjunct Fellow, Centre for Maritime Law, National University of Singapore, Partner, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP. I am grateful to Wang Yufei for her assistance. Any error remains solely mine.
1. In re Welsh Irish Ferries
(The Ugland Trailer) [1986] Ch 471; [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 372; [1985] BCLC 327; Annangel Glory Compania Naviera SA v M Golodetz Ltd, Middle East Marketing Corporation (UK) Ltd and Clive Robert Hammond (The Annangel Glory)
[1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 45; Western Bulk Shipowning III A/S v Carbofer Maritime Trading APS (The Western Moscow) [2012] EWHC 1224 (Comm); [2012] Lloyd’s Rep 163; [2012] All ER (D) 134 (May).
2. [2017] SGHC 172; noted I Teo [2018] LMCLQ 14.
Case and comment
491