The plaintiff seafarer claimed a maritime lien pursuant to art 197.1.1 of the the Shipping Act/Siglingalög No 34/1985 (the Act) over the vessel Quo Vadis, owned by the defendant, as security for the plaintiff's claim for payment for work on the vessel during periods in 2009. [Although Iceland is not a State Party to any of the MLM Conventions, art 197 of the Act broadly tracks the substance of art 2 of the MLM Convention 1926.]

The District Court found that it was undisputed that the plaintiff was working on the ship during the periods in question. He was therefore legally entitled to remuneration for that work, according to the principles of labour law and the general rules of contract law. The plaintiff had not been paid for his work on board as of 11 May 2009, which marked the beginning of the plaintiff's claim and thereby the beginning of the maritime lien: see art 201 of the Act [which provides that maritime liens expire if they are not followed up by legal action within one year of the claim arising].

The plaintiff claimed that art 197 of the Act unequivocally provided for the establishment of a maritime lien. This was a special right that arises when the conditions of the Act are met, without any action being required for that purpose. The plaintiff's claim for recognition of a maritime lien over the ship was directed against the defendant, the owner of the ship.

The defendant argued that it was neither the plaintiff's employer nor the owner of the ship in question during the periods in question. The defendant acquired the ship on 17 December 2009. The defendant argued that in order for it to have to endure a maritime lien on its ship to secure the plaintiff's wage claims, the defendant's employer would have had to be summoned for payment, or at least for recognition of the wages claim. A clear financial claim must be made that the maritime lien is intended to secure. It is not possible to demand recognition of a maritime lien against the owner of a ship without also establishing the amount of the claim, a judgment for payment, or a case being brought against the debtor.

Those who intend to have a maritime lien confirmed by the Court must also bring a case against the debtor of the claim, as the debtor would have to be judged to pay the claim and have the maritime lien confirmed against the owner of the ship. Since the plaintiff had neither previously brought legal action against his employer for his wage claim nor made a claim against it, the case should be dismissed. In support of this, the defendant referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Case no 37/1999, which was issued on 10 June 1999.

The defendant claimed that the plaintiff's case was incomplete. It was not clear what the amount of the claim was that the maritime lien was intended to secure. The claim must be unambiguous, substantiated and specified so that its enforcement can be demanded and so that the claim can be recorded in the judgment. It is an impossibility to confirm a maritime lien for an unspecified claim amount, as this would significantly impair the position and claims of other lienholders.

The District Court held that the plaintiff's claim for recognition of a maritime lien to secure his claim for payments for work during specific periods was not sufficiently clear and definite. The case was dismissed.

The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

The plaintiff seeks recognition of a maritime lien over the defendant's vessel to secure payment of a claim for his work on board the vessel during specified periods. The vessel was operated by Sæblóm hf at the time of the plaintiff's claim, according to him, but the defendant, on the other hand, claims that its subsidiary, Fleur de Mer in Morocco, operated the vessel during this time.

A maritime lien arises when a maritime lien claim arises. According to art 197.1.1 of the Act, a seafarer's claim for wages and other remuneration for work on board a ship is secured by a maritime lien. The claimant brings this action against the defendant for recognition of a maritime lien without having made any effort to obtain recognition that he has a claim that falls under art 197.1.1. He can bring an action for recognition of such a claim against the ship's operator, but not against the defendant: see the judgment of the Supreme Court of 10 June 1999 in Case No 37/1999. Since the plaintiff has not sought recognition that his maritime lien claim has been established, he cannot demand that a maritime lien be recognised as security for it.