This was an appeal in cassation against the judgment of the Rouen Court of Appeal, 4 August 1988. The Yamoussoukio was arrested by Skybird Shipping (Skybird). Sitram, the owner of the ship, applied to the President of the Commercial Court for the release of the vessel from arrest. The application was rejected, but upheld on appeal.

Skybird criticised the Court of Appeal judgment for having accepted Sitram's application for the release of the vessel from arrest. Skybird argued that it arrested the vessel as security for claims arising from the non-performance by Sitram, the seller of another vessel, of its contractual obligations which made this other vessel unfit for navigation. According to arts 1.1.d and 1.1.o of the Arrest Convention 1952, the allegation of a right or claim arising from contracts relating to the use or rental of a vessel by charterparty or otherwise, or the disputed ownership of a vessel, constitutes a maritime claim authorising ship arrest. In this case, by refusing to recognise as a maritime claim under the Arrest Convention 1952 the failure by the seller of the vessel to fulfil its contractual obligations rendering the vessel unfit for navigation and calling into question the transfer of its ownership, the Court of Appeal violated the Convention by refusing to apply it. A creditor arresting a ship according to this Convention does not have to justify a certain debt which cannot be disputed in principle, so the Court of Appeal again violated this Convention.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

Skybird based its application for ship arrest on various 'anomalies' presented by the ship MS Bouake and on the 'failure' of the seller in the performance of the obligations provided for in the memorandum of agreement regarding the sale and purchase of that vessel of 16 April 1988. The Court of Appeal held correctly that the anomalies and non-performance thus alleged did not make the ownership of the ship questionable, and did not fall within the scope of application of art 1 of the Arrest Convention 1952.