Superten Shipping Ltd (Superten) was the owner of the M/V Baltimar Venus, which was registered in the Bahamas. Superten was a Bahamanian company owned by Baltimar A/S Ltd, the ship's technical and commercial manager. Compass International Association Liberia (Compass) chartered the ship under a time charterparty. Compass was represented in Denmark through its agent, Scan-Trans Chartering. During the charterparty period, problems arose with the ship's engine, so the ship was returned and the cargo transported by another ship to its destination. The ship was then docked in Hundested. Compass asserted a claim for damages in connection with the problems that arose during the charterparty period. This claim, and Superten's claim for hire, must be settled by arbitration in London.

On 16 November 2009, Compass applied for the ship's arrest to the Bailiff's Court in Hillerød under s 91(4) of the Merchant Shipping Act, which corresponds to art 1.1.d of the Arrest Convention 1952. The ship was arrested on 18 November 2009. It was subsequently released against security of DKK 1,490,000. On 18 February 2010, Superten filed for arbitration in London, seeking payment of USD 248,389.99 plus interest and costs. The parties agreed that the arbitration proceedings pending in London are binding on the parties and may be enforced in Denmark: see s 38 of the Arbitration Act.

Superten argued that the prerequisite in s 627(2) of the Administration of Justice Act (which provides that the Bailiff's Court 'may effect an arrest as security for monetary claims when ... the possibility of later obtaining security will otherwise be significantly impaired') must be met in order to effect a ship arrest pursuant to Ch 4 of the Merchant Shipping Act. Superten contended that s 627 of the Administration of Justice Act contains the basic conditions for making an arrest. With the amendment of the Administration of Justice Act in 1988, the conditions for making an arrest were tightened, as it was previously sufficient for the creditor simply to have a due claim. In implementing the new rules on arrest under the Merchant Shipping Act, a reference from the Administration of Justice Act to the Merchant Shipping Act was inserted at the same time in the Administration of Justice Act, more specifically section 628(3), which provides that 'cases of arrest of a ship with a ban on the departure of the ship to secure a maritime claim are dealt with in accordance with the rules in Chapter 4 of the Merchant Shipping Act'. This must mean that the conditions in s 627(2) of the Administration of Justice Act must also be met in cases of ship arrest. Section 96 of the Merchant Shipping Act states that the provisions on arrest in the Administration of Justice Act otherwise apply to ship arrest. This must mean that if a matter is not regulated in the Merchant Shipping Act, the Administration of Justice Act applies. The Merchant Shipping Act does not set conditions for making an ship arrest. A literal interpretation therefore leads to the Administration of Justice Act applying.

The Arrest Convention 1952 emerged as a compromise, which in particular consisted in the fact that a ship arrest can only be made for specific claims (maritime claims). It will thus not be contrary to the Arrest Convention to require the conditions set out in s 627(2) of the Administration of Justice Act. If the legislature thought that s 627(2) should not be applied, it would have been obvious to state it clearly.

The fact that a debtor is financially distressed is not sufficient. There must be some immediate concern about the debtor. The fact that the ship is put up for sale does not entail a greater risk of lack of security. In this case, there has been no increase in risk since the conclusion of the charter party agreement. Superten is a single-purpose company in the Bahamas, and the claim must be settled by arbitration in London. The ship was in Hundested and offered for sale through a broker. None of these circumstances indicate that there was a risk of losing security for the claim (forstikkelsesrisiko). The proceeds of the ship sale are still intact.

Compass argued that the claims for which ship arrest can be made are expenses for the operation of the ship, and those covered by maritime liens under s 51 of the Merchant Shipping Act (which broadly corresponds to art 4 of the MLM Convention 1967), which, however, become time-barred after one year. If the conditions in s 627(2) of the Administration of Justice Act were to be met, it would be difficult to effect a ship arrest to preserve the right to a maritime lien, as litigation is not sufficient to stop the time bar. If the conditions in s 627(2) had to be met, a debtor could, by appealing, prevent the delivery of a final judgment within a year. It can hardly be the legislator's intention to disturb the Merchant Shipping Act's arrest and maritime lien system. According to the Merchant Shipping Act, a ship can be arrested for a proprietary claim, and according to the Administration of Justice Act, an arrest can only be made for a monetary claim. Thus there are differences that mean that the rules in the Administration of Justice Act and the Merchant Shipping Act cannot be reconciled.

Furthermore, there are no real reasons why s 627(2) should apply to ship arrest. In shipping, the assets are located at distant destinations, and these are often single-purpose companies. Easy access to arrest gives a creditor protection. The creditor would be thwarted if strict conditions for arrest are set. Alternatively, if the Court finds that the conditions in s 627(2) must be met, it is contended that this is the case here. Superten is a single-purpose company, and if the creditor were to have awaited the arbitration proceedings in London, the ship would have been sold and there would have been no possibility of obtaining security. Superten offered no security for the claim, and put the ship up for sale without informing the creditor. There would therefore be a significant risk that there was a lack of coverage for the creditor's claims.

Held: Judgment for Compass. Superten is ordered to acknowledge that the arrest of the M/V Baltimar Venus made on 18 November 2009 by the Bailiff's Court in Hillerød is confirmed as lawfully effected and enforced.

It is common ground that the plaintiff's claim is a maritime claim. There are no rules in the Arrest Convention that explicitly prohibit the setting of further requirements for effecting a ship arrest in national law. A very comprehensive limitation must, however, probably be presumed to be contrary to the spirit of the Convention.

Maritime liens expire after one year, and this time limit can only be interrupted by making an arrest. The Merchant Shipping Act's arrest warrant is an independent arrest institution that can and must be used if the conditions in the Merchant Shipping Act are met, regardless of whether the conditions in the Administration of Justice Act are met. Section 96 of the Maritime Act may not, according to its wording or location in the Merchant Shipping Act, or on the basis of the preparatory works, be assumed to be aimed at the conditions of arrest under the Administration of Justice Act. The Court therefore finds that the conditions in the Administration of Justice Act, s 627(2), must not be met in order to effect a ship arrest under the Merchant Shipping Act rules.