SBN Trade Ltd (the applicant) applied for the arrest of the Hai Jin Jiang (flagged in Panama) in respect of its claims against Wealth Holding Shipping Lte Ltd (Singapore) (the first defendant), Sigma Operasyon Ve Lojistik Anonim Sirketi (Türkiye) (the second defendant), and Haijinjiang (Hong Kong) Co Ltd (Hong Kong) (the third defendant).

The applicant chartered the ship from the second defendant to transport approximately 51,000 mt of coal from Novrossiysk to a port in Indonesia. During the loading operation at the terminal owned by PJSC NMTP, oil spilled from the vessel. Salvors were engaged to conduct cleaning operations. The terminal facilities were significantly damaged. Until the date of the relevant claim, the vessel was under arrest for the claims of the salvors, Rosprirodnadzor, and the terminal (Cases Nos A32-11424/2024, A32-14434/2024 (CMI2557), A32-10711/2024). The ship stayed in Novorossiysk and could not leave. In the applicant’s view, the owner of the ship did nothing to release the vessel from the arrest and fulfil its obligations under the charter. This circumstance caused significant losses to the applicant. According to the applicant's calculation, its damages were USD 2,540,288.40 and RUB 92,852,532.56.

The applicant applied for the arrest of the vessel.

Held: The arrest was granted.

Under art 99(1) of the Commercial Procedure Code of Russia (the CPC RF), the court may grant a preliminary security measure upon an application made by juristic or natural persons. This measure secures the applicant's property interests prior to claim submission.

According to s 1 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Russia No 15 dated 1 June 2023 (Resolution No 15), security measures are granted to prevent the violation of rights, freedoms, and legitimate interests of the applicant or the public, and to create the conditions for proper judgment enforcement. Pursuant to s 14 of Resolution No 15, courts, considering the application for security measure, establish the grounds for granting the measure and determine whether the measure applied for relates to the subject of the claim, is proportionate to it, and how it meets the security measure's purposes.

Assessing the applicant’s arguments, courts take into account the reasonableness of the security measure applied for, the connection between the relevant measure and the subject of the claim, the probability of causing significant damage to the applicant if the measure is not granted, ensuring the balancing of the parties' interests, and preventing any significant damage caused to the interests of public and third parties if the measure is granted. To prevent significant damage to the applicant, the security measure may be aimed at ensuring the status quo in the parties' interests.

Granting the security measure at the place where the property is located is justified if there is a significant amount of property in a court's jurisdiction from which the applicant’s interests or at least a significant part of the relevant claim may be secured. After the submission of the claim the preliminary security measure will stay in place as a non-preliminary measure.

Under s 16 of the Informational Letter No 81 (CMI2348), if the Merchant Shipping Code of Russia (the MSC RF) contains provisions different from those in the CPC RF, the CPC RF’s provisions apply considering the MSC RF.

Under art 389 of the MSC RF, the claim in connection with any agreement relating to the use (or hire) of any ship is a maritime claim. A similar provision is contained in art 1.1.d of the Arrest Convention 1952. According to arts 388(1) and 388(2) of the MSC RF, the ship against which the maritime claim arose may be arrested by the Commercial Court. The arrest of the vessel is not dependent on the proportionality of the claim and the ship’s value.

Under art 388 of the MSC RF, the arrest is any detention of a ship or restriction of its movement when it is located in Russia on the basis of the judicial act of a court, commercial court, or authorised arbitration institution for maritime claims as determined in art 389 of the MSC RF, excluding the seizure of a ship in the execution of a judgment. According to art 390(1) of the MSC RF, a ship may be arrested even though it is not the wrongdoing ship, but is owned or chartered by demise by the person who would be liable for the claim in personam. The same is provided by art 3.1 of the Arrest Convention 1952.

The defendants are foreign companies. The applicant does not have information on any other property of the defendants located in Russia and available for claim enforcement. Moreover, the vessel may be sold to another person. The claims relating to the charter are not secured by a maritime lien. So, the change in the vessel ownership may result in the impossibility of claim enforcement.

The preliminary security measure applied for aims to prevent significant damage to the applicant and to Russia. NMTP is the biggest Russian maritime port. Not granting the security measures may make it impossible to restore the terminal's operation quickly.

Therefore, the application met the requirements established by the CPC RF and the MSC RF and the vessel was arrested. The Court found that not granting the security measure might result in the impossibility or difficulty of enforcing the claim.