Jorge Enrique Lapalma (the plaintiff) claimed his salary, severance pay, annual leave, and complementary annual allowance for work on the MV Cristo Redentor against Gemar SRL, the ship operator. The plaintiff alleged a maritime lien over the ship and requested its arrest. Salvador Roque Larroca, the shipowner, intervened as a third party, pleading for the release of the vessel from arrest, and arguing that the maritime lien was extinguished.

The first instance Court rejected Larroca's petition, asserting that the claim was not extinguished. On appeal, the Federal Chamber of Appeal of La Plata affirmed this decision, stating that the issue was not about the maritime lien and the time limit for its enforcement, but rather about joint and several liability between the operator and the shipowner. As the operator was not registered as such, art 171 of the Navigation Act states that the operator and the shipowner are jointly and severally liable towards third parties. Larocca appealed to the Supreme Court (SC).

Held: The SC admitted the recourse and reversed the decision.

The SC stated that it was essential to the case to decide whether the claimed maritime lien was extinguished. The extinguishment of the lien would have prevented the arrest of the ship when the shipowner was not sued. According to art 484.a of the Navigation Act, maritime liens over the ship have an expiration period of one year unless the vessel is arrested before the expiration of this period. Article 485.e establishes that the extinction period starts running from the date when the credit originated and became due. The plaintiff claimed labour rights that, according to employment contract law, originated at the exact moment in which the legal conditions for the payment of such rights concurred. The origin of these rights does not depend on any judicial decree. A certificate submitted as evidence suggests that the plaintiff worked on the ship until 6 November 1980. The arrest of the ship was ordered on 13 November 1984, exceeding the one-year period for the extinction of the maritime lien.

The filing of a lawsuit does not interrupt the extinction period, because art 484.a only refers to ship arrest as the instrument for interruption of the period. Ship arrest involves serious consequences for the shipowner, which requires the Court to adopt a restrictive interpretation of this legal norm and dismiss extensions not contained in the provision. In the explanatory statement to the Navigation Act, it is stated that the legislators adhered to the system proposed in the law reform project of Dr Atilio Malvagni, which departed from the wording of art 8 of the MLM Convention 1967. Article 8 of this Convention provides that '[t]he maritime liens set out in Article 4 shall be extinguished after a period of one year from the time when the claims secured thereby arose unless, prior to the expiry of such period, the vessel has been arrested, such arrest leading to a forced sale'. The explanatory statement referred to the difficulties involved in obtaining a final decision and enforcing it within one year, as a result of which the legislator preferred to establish ship arrest as the exclusive instrument to prevent the extinction of the maritime lien. Furthermore, art 484.c establishes a reduced expiration period of three months in case of a private sale of ships, counted from the date of the inscription of the transfer of ownership deed in the National Registry of Ships, subject to the publication of edicts for three days in the Official Bulletin.