This was an appeal against the decision of the Court of first instance refusing the plaintiff's application for a ship arrest, on the basis that the requirement of danger in procedural delay (periculum in mora) was not met. The plaintiff argued that this decision deviated from the applicable legislation and undermined his constitutional rights. The basis for the ship arrest was to ensure the enforcement of a maritime lien which the plaintiff held over the Columbus for unpaid wages from August 2013-March 2014. The urgency arose from the risk of extinction of the maritime lien. The plaintiff therefore asked that the first instance decision be revoked and that the ship arrest be decreed.

Held: The appeal is allowed, and the application for ship arrest is granted.

The plaintiff applies on the basis of art 476(b) of the Navigation Law 20,094 (which gives domestic effect to the MLM Convention 1926 in Argentina). Article 476(b) grants a first-ranking maritime lien over the ship to the master's and crew members' claims derived from their engagement contract, labour laws, and collective labour agreements.

In this context, it is clear that if it is a labour relationship and a claim derived from the engagement relationship, the claim in question will attract a maritime lien and, therefore, precautionary measures can be obtained preventively and directly, appealing to the specific procedure for the arrest of ships (compare arts 531-541 of the Navigation Law).

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the plaintiff must comply with all the procedural requirements leading to the achievement of a precautionary measure, since the sole statement of a party is not sufficient, or the promotion of a demand for a maritime lien, to automatically obtain a precautionary measure such as the one sought, which may come, due to its effects, to frustrate the normal and habitual activity of commercial fishing to which the vessel is dedicated.

When faced with an application for ship arrest in a maritime labour proceeding, the judge must take into account, first of all, the guidelines established in the specific Law 20,094, complementing them - if applicable - with the provisions of the law of labour procedure, this being the exegesis applicable to art 62 of Law 18,345.

From the records, it appears that a judicial auction procedure is underway in respect of the vessel in question, which would detrimentally affect the defendant's assets. Consequently, it is appropriate to allow the appeal filed and consequently grant the requested precautionary measure.