The High Court has refused an application by the owner of the motor vessel *Connoisseur* to set aside proceedings brought by French finance company S.G.B. Finance S.A., lift the vessel’s arrest or stay the case in favour of the English courts.
In a judgment delivered on 7 December 2018, Mr Justice McDonald held that the Irish court had jurisdiction because the lender’s claim was secured by a mortgage over the vessel and the arrest was valid under the 1952 Brussels Convention on the Arrest of Seagoing Ships. He also refused a stay, finding that the interests of justice required the dispute to proceed in Ireland. The underlying loan claim has not been determined.
The owner, English-incorporated Conway Club Limited (CCL), had challenged jurisdiction under the EU Recast Brussels Regulation and argued that England and Wales was the more appropriate forum. It also sought to set aside the arrest warrant, contending that the loan claim did not qualify as a maritime claim and that the lender had failed to disclose material information when it sought the arrest without notice to CCL.
The judgment records that CCL bought the 17.29-metre vessel in 2017 for €1.265 million, excluding VAT. S.G.B. Finance agreed to lend €822,250 towards the purchase. The loan was secured by, among other things, a deed of assignment and a personal guarantee, and was intended to be secured by a vessel mortgage. CCL fell into arrears in January 2018. The vessel was arrested on 21 August 2018 and was then moored in Dún Laoghaire; no alternative security had been provided by the time of the hearing.
The judge found the lender’s summons sufficiently disclosed a claim secured by a mortgage, despite not expressly using the word “mortgage” in its endorsement of claim. Read as a whole, it invoked the Convention provision for mortgage-related maritime claims. The valid arrest gave the Irish court jurisdiction to hear the case on its merits, so the application to set aside the proceedings failed.
The non-disclosure challenge also failed. The judge found no objective evidence that relevant correspondence had been withheld and no basis to conclude that the owner’s proposed individual voluntary arrangement (IVA) affected the lender’s claim against CCL. He also ruled inadmissible a late affidavit raising allegations about changes to the mortgage, noting that the allegations were hearsay and unsupported by evidence from the signatory.
Although the judge considered England and Wales more closely connected to the dispute, he refused a stay. The vessel remained under arrest, the Irish proceedings were already under way, and the court could arrange an early hearing. He also cited CCL’s failure to signal an intention to contest Irish jurisdiction before the proceedings began.
The court refused every element of CCL’s application. It was to hear the parties on further case-management directions and costs; the judge indicated an initial view that costs should be costs in the cause.