The Court of Appeal has dismissed a ship agent’s appeal over €38,314.07 in port costs, holding that the services were arranged for a time charterer and that the vessel’s bareboat charterer was not shown to be liable for the debt.
Spamat S.R.L. said it had paid for services and supplies for the M.V. Alimirante Storni at Bari, Italy, between 4 and 13 March 2018. The costs included pilotage, towage, harbour dues and other port services. The services had been ordered by GK Shipping, the vessel’s time charterer. The respondent, NSC Atlantic Trading GmbH & Cie.KG, was its bareboat charterer and was treated as the vessel’s owner for the purposes of the judgment.
After an apparent payment confirmation from GK Shipping, Spamat allowed the vessel to leave Bari. The payment was in fact still pending and did not go through. Spamat continued to seek payment from GK Shipping but did not demand payment from the respondent before starting proceedings.
The High Court dismissed Spamat’s claim, finding that the services had been ordered by GK Shipping and that the respondent’s personal liability had not been established. The vessel was arrested in Drogheda after proceedings began in October 2018 and released the following day when security was provided.
On appeal, Spamat argued that the claim fell within the maritime claims covered by the 1952 Arrest Convention and could be pursued against the vessel even without personal liability on the respondent’s part. The Court of Appeal accepted that the pleaded claim had initially permitted the vessel’s arrest and that the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the case. But it said the Convention did not itself create a maritime lien, and the claim did not qualify for one under Irish law.
The court also concluded that the evidence did not establish that GK Shipping had acted as the respondent’s agent, or that the respondent had contracted with Spamat. It held that the claimed expenses were incurred for the time charterer’s operation of the vessel, rather than on behalf of the ship or its owner. Spamat therefore had not established a maritime claim giving it a right in rem against the vessel. The appeal was dismissed, so neither the vessel nor the security could be condemned to satisfy the claim.
The respondent separately appealed the High Court’s decision to reduce its costs award by 10%, citing difficulties with trial directions and the handling of evidence by video link. The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had given reasons for the reduction and had acted within his discretion. It dismissed the costs cross-appeal, leaving the 10% reduction in place.