In August 2005 the bunkers aboard the MV Genco Leader were arrested by a Marshal of the Court. The arrest was in connection with a dispute over a time charter for the Tolmi involving Maywal Ltd and Metall und Rohstoff Shipping & Holdings BV. The arrest of the bunkers was sought as security for that dispute, the arbitration of which was still ongoing. Maywal Ltd had recently entered into a time charter with a different company un respect of the MV Genco Leader. The arrest was performed pursuant to s 17 of the Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth) (the Act). Maywal Ltd sought to have the writ for the bunkers' arrest set aside and the bunkers released.

Held: The bunkers aboard the MV Genco Leader should be released and the writ for their arrest set aside.

The plaintiff argued that the property referred to as 'other property' in the introductory part of s 17 was not the same thing as 'property' in (a) and (b) of that section. It also argued that the meaning of 'property' in ss 17(a)-(b) was restricted only by the limitations of the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. As long as the introductory part of s 17 was satisfied, then 'property' could mean almost anything, and did not even need to be connected with or related to the general maritime claim in dispute. The plaintiff relied on this line of reasoning to justify the arrest of the MV Genco Leader's bunkers despite there being no relation between them and the time charter of the Tolmi.

The Court rejected this interpretation of s 17 due to, in part, the plain and simple wording of the section and the fact that it did not permit such a reading. Focusing on the lack of a definite article before the word 'property' in ss 17(a)-(b) was meaningless, since it was already implied. Another important point was that construing s 17 the way that the plaintiff suggested would go against the history of the Act, and unnecessarily introduce a wide notion of maritime attachment of property. The Arrest Convention 1952 was important to the Act's development, creating a 'compromise between the civilians and the common lawyers' in respect of what property a claim could 'attach' to.

Therefore the reference to 'property' in ss 17(a)-(b) and the introductory wording of s 17 referred to the same concept of property, which must be connected with a general maritime claim.

Whether 'property' included bunkers or not was an unimportant point since there was no authority to arrest the bunkers. These were completely unrelated to the general maritime claim and the arbitration occurring abroad.