The plaintiff was owed EUR 95,381.49 for disbursements it made on behalf of the defendants' vessel, the MV Lady Magda. The plaintiff sought and obtained a warrant to arrest the vessel when it arrived in Ireland. The warrant was obtained on the basis that the underlying claim constituted a 'maritime claim' within the meaning of art 1 of the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to Arrest of Sea-Going Ships 1952 (the Arrest Convention 1952) which was incorporated into Irish law by virtue of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Maritime Convention) Act 1989.

The defendants claimed that the plaintiff did not have the right to arrest the vessel since they were not the plaintiff’s debtor. The vessel was time chartered to Dennis Maritime Oy Ltd (DM), a Finnish company unconnected with the defendants. The defendants alleged that they never entered into a contract with the plaintiff for the provision of agency or any other services, and had neither requested the plaintiff's services nor benefited from them. Thus, according to the defendants, they had no liability in these proceedings and the claim for disbursements did not give rise to a maritime lien against the vessel itself.

Held: The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

According to the evidence, the plaintiff provided the services at the request of DM. All the invoices which had been provided by the plaintiff were addressed to DM. The defendants had no knowledge of the status of any agreed services between DM and the plaintiff since the vessel was time chartered to DM. The master of the vessel was employed by the defendants, but was under the directions of the charterer DM during the currency of the time charter. Although the court received submissions on the question of actual or ostensible authority there was no evidence to support a claim that the master of the vessel sought the services of the plaintiff or made any representations to the plaintiff about his authority to do so.

It was therefore clear from the evidence that there was no contractual relationship between the defendants and the plaintiff. The fact that the claim was one for disbursements merely went to the issue of the admiralty jurisdiction to arrest the vessel. It was not determinative of whether this vessel could be condemned for this claim. In this case, there was no personal liability on the part of the defendants. In addition, neither the vessel nor the security provided could be condemned in respect of this claim.

[For the unsuccessful appeal to the Irish Court of Appeal, see Atlas Baltic Oü v Owners and All Persons Claiming an Interest in the MV Lady Magda [2021] IECA 7 (CMI1169).]