On 13 December 2014, the plaintiff arrested the seagoing vessel Ramona as security for a maritime claim for delivery of marine fuel (physically by the plaintiff itself) on board the seagoing vessel. This fuel was ordered from the plaintiff by OW Bunker (Netherlands) BV. The defendant was the owner of the Ramona and had ordered the marine fuel from the Danish company OW Bunker & Trading A/S, which in turn placed that order with OW Bunker (Netherlands) BV.

The plaintiff delivered the marine fuel on board the Ramona and sent its invoice to OW Bunker (Netherlands) BV that same day. That same day, OW Bunker & Trading A/S sent its invoice to the defendant.

On 6 November 2014, prompted by reports of the bankruptcy of the OW companies, the plaintiff requested direct payment of the outstanding invoice by the defendant, who replied on 12 November 2014 that it could no longer make the payment to OW Bunker & Trading A/S. OW Bunker (Netherlands) BV was declared bankrupt by the Court in Rotterdam on 21 November 2014. It is not disputed that OW Bunker (Netherlands) BV owes the plaintiff payment for the delivered marine fuel. According to the plaintiff, the defendant also guarantees that payment, which the defendant disputes.

The authorisation to attach the Ramona was claimed by the plaintiff against OW Bunker (Netherlands) BV and the defendant. Following the defendant's third-party objection, the seizure judge in Antwerp, by order of 18 December 2014, withdrew the warrant to detain the ship and ordered the lifting of the seizure. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal, which declared the plaintiff's appeal admissible but unfounded, and confirmed the lifting of the precautionary attachment on the Ramona.

The plaintiff appealed for cassation, arguing that the Court of Appeal judgment violated arts 1, 2 and 3 of the Arrest Convention 1952, approved by the Act of 24 March 1961.

Held: Cassation.

According to art 1467.1 of the Judicial Code, the Judge may permit the protective seizure of sea-going vessels and inland vessels that are within the jurisdiction of the Court. Pursuant to art 1468 of the Judicial Code, a request for seizure of a seagoing vessel can only be allowed to secure a maritime claim. Pursuant to para k of this provision (which implements art 1.1.k of the Arrest Convention 1952 in Belgium), maritime claims include claims arising from the deliveries of goods or materials to a ship for its management or maintenance.

A maritime claim for deliveries to the ship must be based on a commitment made by the charterer or the shipowner or attributable to them under the doctrine of trust. This legitimate expectation of the supplier must be assessed when the claim arises.

The Court of Appeal did not establish that the plaintiff, either at the time of the order or at the time of invoicing, considered OW Bunker (Netherlands) BV as the exclusive debtor with regard to the fuel delivered on 23 October 2014. In supporting its decision on the basis that, after the plaintiff had become aware of the payment by the defendant to OW Bunker (Netherlands) BV around 5 November 2014, it 'prima facie knew or should have known that it did not have a satisfactory maritime claim on 11 December', the Court did not justify its decision.

The contested judgment is therefore annulled and the case is referred to the Court of Appeal in Ghent.