This case involved a bareboat charter agreement regarding the David Prvi between Jadranski Pomorski Servis DD (JPS), the 99% owner of the vessel, and Rivana Services SA (Rivana), the charterer and remaining 1% owner of the vessel. JPS was a 100% shareholder of Rivana. This agreement was subsequently followed by a sub-bareboat charter agreement of that same vessel between Rivana and PDV Marina SA (PDV). This last agreement mentioned Venezuelan Energy & Navigation SA (Vensa) as 'ship broker'. A separate commission agreement between Rivana and PDV listed Vensa's associated company Tampa Marine SA (Tampa) as 'commercial broker'. Both brokers were subsidiaries of Bluemarine. When Rivana failed to pay some of Tampa's invoices, Tampa assigned its maritime claim to Bluemarine, and Bluemarine arrested the David Prvi. The arrest was subsequently lifted against a guarantee. In the proceedings on the merits, Bluemarine sought a declaratory judgment that JPS and Rivana owed the company the unpaid commission. JPS and Rivana counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment that the arrest was unlawful.

Held: Bluemarine had a valid maritime claim against Rivana.

The question remains whether it was entitled to arrest a ship co-owned by JPS. The David Prvi sailed under the flag of a State that is not a contracting State to the Arrest Convention 1952. Pursuant to art 8.2 of the Convention, an arrest may then be effected in a Contracting State in respect of maritime claims as defined in art 1 of the Convention or in respect of any other claim for which an arrest is permitted under the law of that contracting State.

In this case the claim arises from a legal act binding on the shipowner or the bareboat charterer and which directly relates to keeping the ship in operation as referred to in s 8:217(1)(a) of the Dutch Civil Code. After all, these are costs that Tampa made on the instruction of Rivana in the course of brokering the conclusion of the bareboat charter agreement. Thus, the underlying relationship between the shipowner (JPS) and the bareboat charterer (Rivana) is no longer relevant, since what is decisive is that one of them is bound by the legal act. Bluemarine's maritime claim is recoverable (with priority) from the ship, and thus a claim for which an arrest is allowed under Curaçao law, so that an arrest could be effected pursuant to art 8.2 of the Arrest Convention 1952.