The Mercantile Court No 1 of Cádiz issued an order on 29 June 2020 releasing the relevant vessels from arrest. Liedno Shipping Agents SL appealed this decision. The appeal was opposed by the respondent, Real Fundación Hispania de Barcos de Época. The issue was whether the ship arrest was sought for a claim that could be considered a maritime claim under art 1 of the Arrest Convention 1999.

The respondent opposed the appeal because the loan agreement between the contracting parties did not imply the creation of a maritime claim as specified under art 1.1.m of the Arrest Convention 1999. Although it was true that the appellant, together with Marina Puerto de Santa María SA, lent the respondent some funds in 2010 to deal with a debt resulting from the restoration of a vessel, the loan agreement did not amount to a maritime claim. The maritime claim that existed in 2010 in respect of the company in charge of the restoration of the vessel was extinguished in the same year. At the date of the filing of the appellant's claim in 2019, there was no maritime claim, only a loan agreement that was conditional on the constitution of a ship mortgage.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

Pursuant to art 1.1.m of the Arrest Convention 1999, 'maritime claim' includes a claim arising out of the 'construction, reconstruction, repair, converting or equipping of the ship'. In the decision appealed, the first instance Court held that the appellant's claim did not fall within the relevant provision. The Judge found, on the basis of the loan agreement signed on 24 November 2010, that the agreement was nothing more than a loan that was granted to the respondent for the payment of its debts. In addition, the loan agreement did not require the formalisation of a mortgage over the relevant vessels for the purposes of securing a maritime claim in the terms governed by art 1.1.u of the Arrest Convention 1999.

This Court does not consider that in the present case it is dealing with payment of a maritime claim by a third party, but rather that the appellant granted a loan to the respondent for a specific purpose, which was the payment of the debt that it had contracted with Astilleros de Mallorca SA. This is not a case where the appellant was subrogated to a maritime claim for the repair of the vessel. Rather, the appellant's action arose from a simple loan agreement.