Attachment of the ships Ark-11 and Ark-12, owned by Ark Shipping Co LLC (Ark), for a claim by Silverburn Shipping (IOM) Ltd (Silverburn) against Ark arising out of a contract of affreightment in respect of the Arctic, owned by Silverburn. Ark demanded the lifting of the attachments.

Held: A creditor who has a maritime claim may effect a prejudgment attachment on any of the ships belonging to its debtor. Reference is made to the judgment of the Hoge Raad Court of 9 December 2011 in ‘Costanza M’ (CMI112; S&S 2014/24). Therefore, Silverburn was allowed to effect an attachment on the Ark-11 and the Ark-12 for a maritime claim relating to another ship, the Arctic.

Silverburn has made a sufficient prima facie case that the value of the Ark-11 is insufficient to recover its entire claim. Therefore, art 3.3 of the Arrest Convention 1952 does not stand in the way of the second attachment on the Ark-12.

Ark refuses to redeliver the Arctic to Silverburn, as a result of which Silverburn suffers losses, for which claim Silverburn has effected prejudgment attachments. If anybody, it is Ark who knows what revenues are generated by the Arctic and how Silverburn's claim should be estimated. As Ark does not provide access to the current data, the estimation will be based on the data known to Silverburn. When estimating the claim, no consideration shall be made for the Arctic possibly being off-hire or laid up; it is up to Ark to provide information regarding that point. Although the VAT is a future claim, there is no reason to estimate the claim at a lower amount. Under Dutch law, it is possible to impose a prejudgment attachment for a future claim.