The appellant was employed by Ice-Gam Ltd to work as a mate on its vessels operating in Gambia. The employment contract was for two years. The company's vessels were specified in the contract as 'the freezer vessels Guðrún Hlíf and Saga Hlíf'.

The respondent chartered his ship, the Hjörleifur ÁR-204, to Kaldari ehf. The appellant was thereafter registered to work on this ship. Kaldari ehf allegedly subchartered the ship to Ice-Gam Ltd, but this agreement was not produced. On 20 March 1997, the respondent deregistered all crew members from the Hjörleifur ÁR-204 on the basis that the ship had been subchartered unlawfully.

The appellant sought payment of unpaid wages from the respondent, in addition to a maritime lien over the Hjörleifur ÁR-204, on the basis that, according to art 197.1 of the Shipping Act/Siglingalög No 34/1985 (the Act) [cp art 4, MLM Convention 1967], wage claims were secured by a maritime lien over the ship. Although it was not apparent that the respondent represented Ice-Gam Ltd, which had entered into the employment contract with the appellant, the appellant argued that the wages claim should be upheld against him: art 212.1 of the Act states that a lawsuit may be brought to enforce a claim secured by a maritime lien on a ship, whether against the shipowner or the master [cp art 7.1, MLM Convention 1967]. It is clear that a maritime lien entails a kind of objective liability of the shipowner for the crew members' wages claims. The respondent should thereby be liable as the shipowner for the wages claim, as he alone would be required to tolerate a maritime lien over his ship to secure the claim.

The Reykjavík District Court held that it was not proven that there was any legal relationship between the respondent and Ice-Gam Ltd at the time the appellant was employed on the relevant ship. The appellant could not base his wage claims against the respondent on a contract he had made with a third party, without it being established that that party had lawful control over the ship. The appellant's claims should therefore be dismissed.

The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

The appellant bases its case on the fact that there is a maritime lien over the respondent's ship for his wages claim pursuant to art 197.1 of the Act. An action for the enforcement of a claim secured by a maritime lien on a ship may be brought against either the shipowner or the captain: see art 212.1 of the same Act. The appellant thus considers himself entitled to direct a case regarding his wages claim against the respondent, who, as the owner of the Hjörleifur ÁR-204, is also personally liable for its payment due to the latter provision of the law.

Article 212.1 of the Act does not expressly provide for the personal liability of a shipowner for a claim covered by a maritime lien. The action covered by the special rule in the provision is described there as an action 'for the enforcement of a claim' which is secured by a maritime lien. The quoted words indicate that the provision covers an action that is brought specifically to secure authorisation to take enforcement action against a ship under the protection of a maritime lien, such as an action to confirm a lien, rather than covering an action that is brought in a general manner to obtain a judgment on the legal obligation of a person or entity to pay a claim. The background to the provision also strongly suggests that it is intended to cover only an action for authorisation to take action against a ship to enforce a maritime lien.

Accordingly, it cannot be agreed with the appellant that art 212.1 of the Act should be interpreted in such a way that it automatically results in the shipowner being personally liable for payment of a claim for which there is a maritime lien over the ship. Here, the respondent has not specifically assumed such liability. The appellant cannot therefore direct his claim for payment of the debt against the respondent.

The appellant has neither previously brought legal action against Ice-Gam Ltd regarding his claim for wages, nor is he making a claim against the company in this case. It was therefore inevitable that the case would be automatically dismissed by the District Court with regard to the appellant's claim for confirmation of a maritime lien.