Malik Supply A/S (Malik Supply) and Nordic Marine Oil A/S (Nordic Marine Oil) entered into a contract with NTL Shipping AB (NTL) regarding three bunker oil deliveries to the vessels Anne Mette Bulker and Indian Bulker in Denmark, Latvia and Sweden. Anne Metter Bulker was owned by J Lauritzen A/S (Lauritzen) and Indian Bulker was owned by Blue Cypress Line SA (Blue Cypress); however, both vessels were time chartered by NTL.

In August 2017, NTL went bankrupt, and due to the bankruptcy Malik Supply and Nordic Marine Oil did not receive payments for some of the bunker oil deliveries. Malik Supply and Nordic Marine Oil thus requested payment of the remaining amounts from Lauritzen and Blue Cypress, stating that Malik Supply and Nordic Marine Oil would, in the alternative, arrest the vessels.

Lauritzen and Blue Cypress subsequently instituted proceedings against Malik Supply and Nordic Marine Oil in Denmark, claiming that Malik Supply and Nordic Marine Oil had no claim for payment of the bunker oil and that there were no grounds for arresting the vessels.

According to Danish law, bunker deliveries do not give rise to a maritime lien. During the legal proceedings, Malik Supply and Nordic Marine Oil undertook that they would not arrest the vessels in Denmark. Nevertheless, Malik Supply arrested Anne Mette Bulker in Argentina.

One of the questions before the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court was whether the arrest of Anne Mette Bulker in Argentina was unlawful, making Malik Supply and Nordic Marine Oil liable for damages.

Held: The Court initially found that it had no authority to set aside the arrest of Anne Mette Bulker in Argentina as the arrest was not inconsistent with Danish law. The Court further found that the question of whether Malik Supply and Nordic Marine Oil were liable for damages due to the arrest had to be determined in accordance with the law of the contracting State in which the arrest was made: see the International Convention Relating to the Arrest of Sea-Going Ships (Arrest Convention 1952), art 6.1.

The Court therefore found that the arrest of the vessel in Argentina was lawful and that Lauritzen had no claim for damages due to the arrest.