Agenzia Marittima Saidelli SRL (Saidelli) and Trader SAS (Trader) (the plaintiffs) were foreign business entities with their principal places of business in Italy. The plaintiffs arrested the M/V Dexterity in Louisiana. The vessel was registered in Panama, was owned by Opulence Transport Corp, and was time chartered to Worldine Inc (who had declared bankruptcy).

The plaintiffs asserted maritime liens for payment for supplies and services provided to the vessel while in ports in Italy. Trader sought payment for bunkers provided to the vessel. Saidelli (Worldline’s agent for the vessel in La Spezia) sought payment for various goods and services supplied to the vessel. Saidelli did not provide direct goods or services. Instead, these were provided by third parties at the request of Agenzia Marittima Laviosa (Laviosa), acting as agent for Saidelli.

The plaintiffs argued that US law, specifically the Maritime Lien Act, was applicable, along with the Arrest Convention 1952. The defendant contended that Italian law applied and the Maritime Liens and Mortgages Convention 1926 (the MLM 1926) applied.

Held: Judgment for the defendant. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

Italian law applies to all but the procedural aspects of the case. None of the parties is a US corporation. The contracts were for Italian goods and services and were performed entirely in Italy. None of the claims have any connection with the US. The only contact with the US is the arrest of the vessel in Louisiana on a voyage unrelated to the plaintiffs' claims.

The Arrest Convention 1952 is inapplicable. It is not a statute of the US and only applies if it confers a maritime lien enforceable by an action in rem. Article 9 of the Arrest Convention 1952 expressly states that it does not create maritime liens. Article 1.1 lists the maritime claims for which a vessel may be arrested. The plaintiffs' Italian law expert concedes that a maritime claim is less than a maritime lien under Italian law.

Article 2 of the MLM Convention 1926 defines the acts and claims that give rise to a maritime lien. By art 2.5 of the Convention, a lien for supplying a vessel only arises when supplies are provided as a result of contracts entered into or acts done by the master. In this case, the master did not contract for the bunkers, but rather these were supplied in response to a fax from the charterer to Saidelli requesting that Saidelli make arrangements for the bunkers. Therefore, no maritime lien arose and Trader's claim is dismissed.

Saidelli contended that it has a maritime lien for the agency fee charged for providing a variety of services to the vessel. The MLM Convention 1926 does not grant such a claim the status of a maritime lien. Saidelli also requested payment for the fees incurred for a variety of services provided to the vessel.

Article 2.5 of the MLM Convention 1926 (the only arguable basis for asserting that these claims constitute maritime liens) provides that a maritime lien arises for:

Claims resulting from contracts entered into or acts done by the master, acting within the scope of his authority away from the vessel’s home port, where such contracts of acts are necessary for the preservation of the vessel or the continuation of its voyage, whether the vessel master is or is not at the same time owner of the vessel, and whether the claim is his own or that of the ship chandlers, repairers, lenders, or other contractual creditors.

The master of the vessel specifically requested a pilot, berth and chart by telex prior to arriving in La Spezia. To determine whether such requests give rise to a lien under art 2.5 of the Convention it is necessary to examine Italian law. The defendant's Italian law expert opined that a claim for supplying goods and services to a vessel gives rise to a maritime lien over a vessel only where:

• the contract with the supplier was actually entered into and concluded by the master;
• the above happened in a place where neither the shipowner nor a ship agent were present;
• the vessel was away from the home port; and
• the contract was entered into for the continuation of the voyage.

A master who requests goods and services from a ship's agent is not deemed to have concluded a contract within the meaning of art 2.5 of the MLM Convention 1926. Because the master's requests were made to the ship's agent rather than directly to the supplier, no maritime liens arise from the requests. Additionally, the master's requests do not constitute 'acts done by the Master' within the meaning of art 2.5 of the Convention. The defendant's Italian law expert testified that the concept of 'acts done by the Master' is not applicable to the 'supply of goods and services, but rather applies to the enforced sale of the cargo by the Master for the continuation of the voyage'. Thus, despite the master’s specific request for a pilot, chart, berth, and lodging of a note of sea protest, no maritime lien was created in connection with the supplying of those goods and services. If plaintiff has no lien for those claims involving specific requests by the master, there can be no liens for those goods and services that Saidelli asserted were implicitly requested by the master.

Saidelli maintained that the vessel was liable in rem for the charges incurred for pilots, anchorage dues, sanitary officer dues and fees, customs clearances, and administrative charges. Article 2.1 of the MLM Convention 1926 provides that maritime liens arise for 'tonnage dues, light or harbour dues, and other public taxes and charges of the same character', and pilotage dues. However, none of those particular services was performed directly by Saidelli. Laviosa hired, and paid, a third party to perform the piloting service. Laviosa also paid the anchorage dues, sanitary dues, customs clearance, and administrative charges. There is no evidence to support a claim by Saidelli for any of these amounts paid by Laviosa. Therefore, plaintiff’s claims for these items must be dismissed.

Saidelli argued that it is subrogated to the maritime liens that arose in favour of the direct suppliers of the goods and services. The parties' Italian law experts agree that an agent who advances money on the principal's behalf to pay a supplier is not subrogated to the supplier's maritime lien. Moreover, the charterparty provides that Worldline is responsible for payment of the services and fees which give rise to maritime liens under art 2.1 of the Convention. The only remaining claim is that for advances to the master and officers. Funds were advanced for two separate purposes: to pay customs fines, and to pay the crew for unlashing the cargo. There is no basis under Italian law for concluding that the advancing of money to the master in order to pay a customs fine gives rise to a maritime lien. The advance to pay the crew to unlash the cargo as payment of wages for a contract of engagement of the crew which can give rise to a maritime lien under art 2.2 of the MLM Convention 1926. However, because there is no evidence that Saidelli directly advanced the money for wages, the claim must be dismissed.