Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
MARITIME COURT JURISDICTION CONCERNING FUEL SUPPLIES
PG Naschitz and Omer Guy*
The Emmanuel Tomasos
In M/V Bunker Malta Ltd v M/V Emmanuel Tomasos,1 the plaintiff, a company engaged in the supply of fuel, claimed in the Israeli Maritime Court that it supplied fuel to the vessel in Lome Port, Togo, via a local supplier, Stena Oil AB (“Stena”). The plaintiff claimed that it did not receive consideration for the supply of this fuel. Together with filing the claim, the plaintiff applied for a ship arrest and a ship arrest order was given which was later removed after the shipowner filed appropriate guarantees. In the name of the defendant vessel, its owners did not concern themselves with whether fuel was supplied but only with the question of the identity of the supplier entitled to consideration.
The legal question around which the decision turned was then who “supplied” the fuel in respect of whom a maritime lien is applied on the vessel, or for whose benefit there is an in rem claim. One of the main characteristics of the Israeli Maritime Court is found in its jurisdiction to hear in rem claims—namely, the possibility of filing claims against “property” (the vessel), as opposed to claims against legal persons. The in rem claim gives the plaintiffs the possibility of “freezing” the status quo of the vessel via a ship arrest order as well as the means of realising the vessel for payment of debts from the proceeds of sale of the vessel or from monies which were deposit for its release. Thus, in The Mitera
CASE AND COMMENT
459