This was an appeal in cassation against the judgment of the Rouen Court of Appeal, 27 April 1990. Having carried out unloading operations from two ships, the Guatemala and the Costa Rica, Dock Industriels (the creditor) was owed money by FMI, the operator acting on behalf of Compania de Vapores Centro Americano (the shipowner). The creditor was authorised by order of the President of the Commercial Court to arrest the Costa Rica, which, in the meantime, had been sold to Echo Trader and had become the Eal Saphir. An application for the retraction of the order authorising the precautionary seizure was rejected by an interim order.

Echo Trader criticised the judgment for having maintained the arrest of the vessel. Echo Trader argued that, while art 3 of the Arrest Convention 1952 authorises the creditor to seize the ship to which the claim relates, this ship must still belong to the owner of the ship at the origin of the claim. A ship cannot be arrested if it was transferred to a third party purchaser and the sale was regularly published prior to the arrest. By stating that the transfer of ownership of the vessel to Echo Trader could not stand in the way of the ship arrest requested by the creditor, who is a simple unsecured creditor, the Court of Appeal violated arts 3 and 9 of the Arrest Convention 1952. Echo Trader also argued that the creditor had, in full knowledge of the facts, contracted with FMI, a time charterer, and could not be mistaken regarding the absence of property rights of FMI over the ship when the debt arose. Consequently, the creditor of a time charterer of the vessel could not initiate the arrest of a vessel belonging to an owner with whom it had not contracted. The Court of Appeal therefore violated art 455 of the new Code of Civil Procedure

Held: Appeal dismissed.

On an application of art 3 of the Arrest Convention 1952, the holder of a maritime claim may seize the vessel to which that maritime claim relates, even if the owner has sold it since the claim arose. It is therefore right that the Court of Appeal decided that the transfer of ownership of the disputed ship did not obstruct an arrest made at the request of the creditor. Having held both that the creditor's claim fell under art 1.1.n of the Arrest Convention 1952, that is to say, 'disbursements made by shippers, charterers or agent on behalf of a ship or her owner', and that FMI was the operator on behalf of the owner of the ship for which the services had been performed, the Court of Appeal responded to the issues raised by Echo Trader.