This was an appeal against the Møre og Romsdal District Court's ruling in case 24-174364TVI-TMOR/TMOL on a ship arrest.

The District Court held that the plaintiffs, Fatoh and Hammoud, were permitted to seize as security for their claims up to USD 41,511, as well as NOK 33,192 of Idris Shipping Ltd's assets, including the Tanzanian-flagged MV Torvind. The vessel could be released against security of NOK 550,000. The execution of the ship arrest was made dependent on the plaintiffs providing security for port fees incurred during the case, so that their security at all times would cover port fees for at least 14 days ahead.

The arrest warrant stated that the appellants had outstanding and overdue wages claims secured by a maritime lien: see s 51.1 of the Maritime Code 1994: 'wages and other sums due to the master and other persons employed on board in respect of their employment on the vessel'. Fatoh had overdue wages claims for September and October 2024, and Hammoud had overdue wages claims from December 2022-October 2024. In addition, there were interest claims and repatriation expenses, as well as legal costs.

The appellants appealed the District Court's ruling to the Frostating Court of Appeal on 29 November 2024. The appeal concerned the District Court's application of the law, and was directed against the finding regarding provision of security for port fees.

The appellants argued an error of law. They referred to the Maritime Code, s 97.4, second sentence: 'Employees onboard the ship are exempted from the requirement of security in regard to legal action relating to claims secured with maritime liens in the ship, cf. Section 51.' Section 97.1 regulates the obligation to provide security for port dues. It is apparent from the arrest application that there are documented unpaid wage claims from the last 12 months and related claims that form the basis for the arrest request on which the District Court based its ruling. The District Court has incorrectly assumed that the employees must provide security for the port dues.

The District Court's application of the law has resulted in the bailiff in Molde having notified that the ship arrest will be lifted as security has not been provided. The appellants do not have the means to provide security.

Held: The wrong remedy has been applied for in the appeal against the District Court's ruling.

The District Court's order for arrest was issued without prior oral proceedings: the Disputes Act, s 32-7 para 2. Regarding the right to challenge such an order, s 32-8 para 1 states:

If the court has decided on temporary protection without oral proceedings, the parties and any other person affected may request subsequent oral proceedings regarding the protection. Subsequent oral proceedings may also be requested regarding the costs of the proceedings that have been imposed. If subsequent oral proceedings may be requested under this section, the decision may not be appealed.

It follows from the above that a decision made without oral proceedings cannot be challenged in any other way than by requesting oral proceedings subsequently pursuant to s 32-8 of the Disputes Act. The District Court's ruling was incorrectly challenged on appeal to the Court of Appeal.

It is clear from the letter of transmission to the Court of Appeal that the District Court has not succeeded in having the order of arrest and the appeal served before transmission. Consequently, the appellants have not been made aware that the wrong legal remedy has been used. They have therefore not been given the opportunity to correct the error. Their appeal is not dismissed, but will be processed by the District Court as a request for subsequent oral proceedings.