|
整理旧文件，在电脑中发现这个20年前的译稿，才想起来我也拿过国际法硕士学位的，毕业多年不从事法律工作，近乎法盲了，得重新拾起来。 International Maritime and Admiralty Law（2002） By William Tetley 不穿鞋子的刀客 译 第12章 特别法定权利、海上留置权、抵押权、及其它请求权 I．引言-海商法中的担保 海商法有其特别的担保法体系，该体系包括了这些担保各自特别的实现方式。被担保的权利是对船舶、货物、以及运费的权利，并且结合了民法法系与普通法系的一些原则，将其并入到广泛接受的规则当中，这些规则在三个国际海事留置权公约中已经得到了确认。[1] II. 海上担保法的历史演进 1）民法法系 由于海商法起源于民事法律，最早的海上留置权（特别权利）的萌芽见于早期的民事法典当中。 例如，在《查士丁尼学说汇纂》中就提到了四种形式的海上留置权：海运借贷利息；海上贷款（押船借贷）[2]使船舶负有[3]一项贷款去建造、购买、或者装备船舶并以一种特别权利（privilegium）去做担保；[4]建立在修理船舶与供应船员基础上的一种特别权利；[5]以及赋予船舶东或者借款以供支付运费的人的一种对于货物的特别权利。[6] 《奥列隆规则》[7]的第1条[8]也特别值得注意，因为，除了规定押船借贷，它还规定了一种非常 早期的代理，即，船长需要从船舶东那里获得一项特别的授权或者委任来售出船舶。另一方面，法律还授权船长在为着船舶费用之必需时，基于全体船员的建议，将船舶装备抵押出去。同时，货物抵押贷款[9]还在《奥列隆规则》第3条[10]中有所提及，在布里坦尼版本的《奥列隆规则》第4条中，还提到了基于海上救助的一种对于货物的可能的留置权。[11] 在《奥列隆惯例》[12]第LXXXIII章中，提及船舶合伙人之间的一种首要权利，即，如果一个合伙人为另一合伙人支付了其应摊份额，那么他对船舶本身的请求权要优先于该未付应摊份额的合伙人的请求权。该惯例阐述了在港船舶的责任问题，因而也包含了非常早期的合伙法与公司法的萌芽。 2）普通法法系 普通法法系尽管比民法法系出现得晚得多，但对海商法的发展做出了主要的贡献，特别是关于船舶抵押权、侵权留置权、以及对物令状[13]的规定。罗马法中的抵押权限于针对动产，在民法典中它是不允许针对船舶的，[14]但普通法可以毫无困难地将其动产抵押的规定运用于船舶。在民法法系中特别权利也不能以合同约定方式之外的任何方式确立，因而侵权留置权在民法法系中也得不到承认；[15]然而普通法却具有足够的灵活性来包容这些。[16]对物令状则是普通法中的另外一个独特的概念，[17]这一概念最终通过国际公约被吸收到了海商法当中。[18] 3）国际公约 1926、1967、及1993年[19]三个国际海上留置权与抵押权公约融合了大陆法与普通法的法律概 念与规则，形成了一个相对统一的海上担保法。有意思的是，这些公约依次都试图限制留置权的数量，以增加船舶抵押权的价值，从而利于船舶融资。[20] III．海上担保的各种形式 1）特别法定权利 1926年留置权与抵押权公约在其《签字议定书》（第I条第2款）中允许缔约国通过国内立法， 赋予特定公共机构以：扣留船舶权、出售船舶权、以及对于出售船舶所得款项的第一位的优先权，以满足港务费与清除船舶残骸的费用。[21] 逐渐地和几乎不被注意到地，“特别法定权利”已经被世界各国的国内立法所确认，以赋予政府机构[22]“第一位的权利”来满足停泊费、港务费、运河通行费、以及相应的损害赔偿费用[23]、清除船舶残骸的费用[24]、以及近来的扣留费用、清除（以及某些情况下的摧毁）污染船舶的费用。[25]这些扣留与出售船舶的权利当中，有的可以上溯到超过100年以前[26]，并且它们还很少见列于现代立法与现代法律文本的优先权目录中。[27] 现在可以归结一下“特别法定权利”的含义了：即，属于政府机构的（以及，有时候是属于个人的）、针对船舶、有时也针对船上货物的、通常在地位上是优先于海上留置权的权利。这些属于政府机构的权利至少有以下所列三种性质中的两种：[28] (a) 扣留权（从这一方面看，类似于占有留置权）； (b) 出售权；以及 (c) 对于出售所得款项的优先权或第一位的权利。 较近来，特别法定权利无论在国际公约还是在国内立法中都得到了体现，以作为制裁违反海关法[29]、移民法[30]、以及禁毒法[31]的刑事措施。典型的形式就是赋予政府以扣押、没收、以及出售作为犯罪工具的船舶的权力。[32]类似的规定也见于惩治海盗、武器控制、以及渔业的规章当中。[33] 2）诉讼费用与扣船保管费用 a) 诉讼费用 诉讼费用与“扣船保管费用”（即在扣船之后、船舶售出之前保管船舶的费用）在传统上是次 于优先权受偿的，无论在国际公约中[34]、大陆法当中[35]、还是普通法当中[36]都是如此。诉讼费用通常包括：海事法庭执行扣船与出售船舶的费用、[37]请求扣船一方从包括扣船开始的诉讼费用、[38]得到指令去估价与出售船舶一方自得到该指令开始、包括该指令在内的诉讼费用。[39] b) 扣船保管费用 扣船保管费用只有在当它是为着全体债权人的利益时才可以判决满足受偿，因此，较合理的做法是：在招致此种费用时预先获得法院的允许。[40]合同设定的扣船保管费用必须是以船舶作为信用基础的。[41]然而，即使没有法院的预先批准，许多费用也可以列为扣船保管费用，即，当法院运用其裁量权，在公平的基础上，认为这笔费用是为着债权人全体利益而支出的。[42] 所谓扣船保管费用，指的是为保管船舶而使之能够以最好的价格出售而支出的花费。它可以包括：码头费[43]；船员遣返费用[44]；为使船舶能够售出而必需的修理费用；[45]以及为妥善保护船舶而支出的看管费用（即使是由船员进行的看管）。[46] 如果经司法拍卖所得款项还不足以支付所有看管费用，法院就会运用公平原则在这些权利请求人之间进行分配。[47] 3）传统海上留置权 a) 定义与法律特征 对英国法中传统海上留置权范围的权威表述是由Gorell Barnes法官在TheRipon City一案[48]中做出的，它包括：“船舶抵押借贷、海上救助、船员工资、船长工资、船上开支与负债、以及损害赔偿。”传统海上留置权是在某些特定服务提供给船舶时、或船舶造成某些特定损害时自动产生。[49]它们无须进行任何通知与登记以及其它任何法律手续，[50]也不取决于是否占有船舶或是否已经扣船。[51]它们从产生起就附着在船舶上，直到通过对物诉讼得到强制执行，[52]它们随船舶所有权的转移而转移，即使是未经通知的支付了对价的善意购买人也要受其约束。[53]它们在法律地位上优于船舶抵押权，次于特别法定权利、已经事先存在的占有留置权、诉讼费用、以及扣船保管费用。[54]它们可以施加于船舶、货物、以及运费。[55] 传统海上留置权是对他人财产的真正的、实体的权利（他物权），是对船舶所有人的绝对所有权的限制。[56]它是一种在普通法中没有对应词的一种秘密留置权，它符合于大陆法中“特别权利”（privilege）的概念，也符合大陆法之所源出的“商人习惯法”的概念。[57] b) 海上留置权与对物法定权利 在英国以及英联邦国家，把传统海上留置权从对物法定权利（有时候也称作“法定留置权”）中区别出来是至关重要的。[58]对物法定权利不同于传统海上留置权，它只有自扣船之时始能产生（或者，象在英国那样，从发出扣船令之时始能产生），而不是从船舶获得特定服务时、或者船舶造成特定损害时产生。对物法定权利不象传统海上留置权那样随着船舶转移而转移，而且在船舶售出后即告消灭。而且，对物法定权利在法律地位上低于船舶抵押权，与此同时，传统海上留置权在法律地位上高于“抵押留置”。对物法定权利是一种由成文法赋予的纯程序的救济，以在对物诉讼中允许扣押船舶作为海事请求权的担保。而不是源自一般的海商法的针对船舶的实体财产权。 c) 传统海上留置权的种类 今天，传统海上留置权是为着：[59]船员及船长的工资、海上救助、船舶碰撞（侵权）、以及，在少数情况下，船长的船上开支、船舶抵押贷款（以及货物抵押贷款）在当代航运界实际上已经过时。[60]在英国以及英联邦国家，大多数其它形式的海事请求权仅仅由对物法定权利进行担保。这些其它请求权包括为了“必需”而由合同设定的请求权，如修理费、拖船费、装饰费、船舶运行所需要的货物与材料费，以及由运输合同（例如，对运货船舶的货损请求权）和租船合同（例如，租船人的请求权）所生之请求权。[61] 在美国则是另一种情况，不存在所谓对物法定权利。实际上，所有海事请求权都由海上留置权予以担保，海上留置权随相关请求权产生而产生，并且随船舶转移而转移。特别是，与英国法及其它英联邦国家法律相反的是，在美国，赋予由合同设定的“必需”（包括，但不限于：修理费、供应品、拖船费、干船坞使用费、以及船台滑道使用费[62]）以可以通过对物民事诉讼而强制实施的海上留置权。[63]该留置权作为对船舶“提供”必需品（商品或服务）的结果而产生，它包括：或者是对船舶的实际交货、或者至少是船舶的供应商将供应品归于特定合同名下。[64] d) 美国：海事优先留置权与其它海上留置权 美国法对“海事优先留置权”与其它海上留置权作出区分。海事优先留置权包括：[65]在优先抵押权提出之前以合同设定的海上留置权（例如必需品的合同）；[66]（侵权）损害留置权；直接雇用的装卸工（码头工人）的留置权；船员工资留置权；共同海损与海上救助留置权。海事优先留置权在法律地位上优于优先抵押权与普通的海上留置权。[67] e) 共同海损留置权 另外，在产生共同海损与领港费情况下也产生海上留置权。“共同海损”意思是共同的“损失”，[68]而且是一方在自愿的、有意的、而且合理地情况下、在共同的海上冒险中，为了全体各方的利益而做出的非同寻常的损失或花费。[69]基本的原则就是：凡是因这种损失或花费而获益的人必须根据其被挽救的财产的价值按比例分摊损失。[70] 为共同海损分摊目的的海上留置权在国际公约[71]与一些国家的立法当中得到了体现，特别是在大陆法国家与美国。[72]在英国则是另外一种情况：船舶对货物仅有占有留置权可以主张，[73]而货物仅有对物法定权利可以对船舶主张。[74]在英国，共同海损分摊也可以通过针对船舶或者货物的对人诉讼得到实现。[75]在加拿大，有一种“半海上留置权”可用来进行共同海损分摊，它跟传统海上留置权相类似，随着船舶的转移而转移，但它在法律地位上要低于抵押权，这一点它类于对物法定权利。[76] f) 领港费留置权 在国际公约中，规定了领港费享有海上留置权。[77]在美国，领港费请求权也具有海上留置权的法律地位，因为它被认为是“必需的支出”。[78]在加拿大，领港费请求权至少具有作为加拿大法律特色的“半海上留置权”的法律地位，[79]在判例中有两个法院甚至曾经给予领港费请求权以完全的海上留置权的法律地位。[80]法国将1926年公约纳入其国内法，[81]给予领港费请求权以与公约规定相同的有限权利。然而，在英国，领港费请求权仅仅具有对物法定权利的地位，[82]但在英国与加拿大，也规定了某些特定情况下的扣留权。[83] 4）船舶抵押权（Hypothecs） a) 大陆法 从大陆法的视角来看，对船舶设立抵押权违反了一个基本的原则，即，只有不动产（例如：土地和房屋）才可以被抵押。[84]在1807年《法国商法典》第190条中，船舶被认为是动产。[85]直到十九世纪后半期大陆国家才修正了这一观点，各自通过成文立法进行了这一转变：法国在1874年，[86]葡萄牙在1833年，[87]普鲁士在1861年，[88]西班牙在1893年。[89] 此外，与普通法中的船舶抵押权不同，大陆法中的海上抵押权并不赋予直接占有财产的权利，而只是针对船舶出售所得款项的权利，这一权利必须通过法院才可实现。[90] b) 普通法 与大陆法不同，英国法中的船舶抵押权赋予并非船东的抵押权人以针对财产本身的直接的权利，该抵押权人可以仅仅通过一个通知、不必非要经过法院诉讼程序即可取得占有。[91]船舶抵押权中的所有权原则可能源自罗马法中的信托原则-抵押权人被视作真正的所有权人，是经他的允许抵押人才使用船舶。[92]抵押权人保留了取得占有的权利（在抵押人对债务违约，或者其行为危及抵押权人的担保权利时[93]），并且，一旦取得占有，抵押权人就有权对船舶进行处分，或者，就其登记内容享受其份额。[94]然而，现代关于船舶抵押权的成文立法常常规定抵押权人不应当被视为所有权人，除非就以船舶或其可获得的份额来实现其抵押债权而言是必需的。[95] 在英国，船舶抵押权或者是“法律上的”抵押权（对于已经作了登记的船舶，通过经核准的书面文据形式，并且予以登记，而后生效[96]）、或者是“衡平法上的”抵押权（未满足“法律上的”抵押权要件的抵押权[97]）。抵押常常伴随一担保契据，在该契据中双方就这些事项达成合意：还款时间、利息、保险、以及何种情况构成违约。[98]在美国，“优先抵押权”也必须是书面的和经过登记的，它可以针对在美国登记的船舶，也可以针对在外国登记的船舶。[99]美国法还允许“混合抵押”（针对船舶和其它财产）与“船队抵押”（针对同一所有人拥有的多艘船舶）。[100] 大陆法国家在过去一百年里已经采纳了普通法船舶抵押权的原则，[101]也已经能够成为国际海上留置权公约的签字国。[102]例如，法国规定了对法国船舶抵押权的登记制度，以及，在船舶于法国登记之前，经购买人同意，对从国外购买或者建造的船舶进行抵押权登记。[103] c) 抵押的财产（Hypothecated） 船舶抵押权附着于船舶与其属具之上。[104]在抵押权人取得占有后仍在增加的运费通常是要受到抵押权的限制。[105]然而，在法国，抵押权并不包括运费。[106]在英国，只有在抵押时特别指明或者法律有特别规定时，抵押留置权才能够影响船舶燃料。[107]在美国，如果抵押时特别说明，或者是船舶在被扣押保管期间所供应，燃料也在抵押权包括范围内。[108] 造船人的抵押权在一些国家也得到了确认，[109]尽管规定了允许此种抵押之登记的1967年《关于建造中船舶的公约》（第1条和第5条）还没有生效。 d) 优先次序 船舶抵押权在法律地位上低于传统海上留置权，在船舶抵押权相互之间，根据它们登记时间的先后次序，先登记的先受偿。[110] 5）合同留置权 a) 对物法定权利-英国/英联邦国家 合同留置权是因供给船舶货物与服务的合同而生的、针对船舶的特别权利。此种留置权在法律 地位上低于船舶抵押权（因此也就低于海上留置权）。合同留置权是赋予：a) 必需品的供应商，b) 船舶修理人，c) 码头装卸人，以及d) 拖轮运营人。在英国以及其它英联邦国家，这些必需的货物与服务的供应商不享有随船舶转移到新所有人而转移的传统海上留置权，而仅仅拥有对物法定权利，这一权利从发出令状时（如英国）或者从船舶被扣押时（如加拿大）开始，只要船舶还在扣押中，该权利一直存在（或者直到提供了保证书或其它形式的担保）。[111]如果在船舶被扣押之前已经卖给了另外一个所有人手里，供应商的对物法定权利即告消灭。根据1993年《留置权与抵押权公约》第6条，造船人与修船人也可以由国内法规定给予一个6个月期的留置权，这一留置权在法律地位上低于抵押权。然而，这一留置权在船舶出售给善意第三人6天后即告消灭（第6条b项。）。 b) 海上合同留置权-美国 在美国，合同留置权是真正的海上留置权。如果它是在针对船舶的“优先抵押权”提出之前就 已经产生，它就是“海事优先留置权”。[112]否则它就只是普通的海上留置权。在美国的海商法中，同样，“待履行合同原则”要求在任何可能的海上留置权产生之前，供应品已经实际交货到船上、或者服务已经实际提供给船舶，视具体情况而定。[113] c) 约束船舶 国际留置权与抵押权公约通常允许船东、租船人、以及船舶管理人与运营人招致留置权。[114] 这种留置权可以针对任何种类的船舶，除非有主权豁免的情况存在。[115] 在英国，如果两个基本的条件得以满足，船舶也受到因必需品供应合同及类似法定合同所生留置权的对物约束：首先，订购必需品的人（也就是在对人请求权中承担责任的人）必须是船东、租船人（光船、期租、或者程租）、或者是在请求权产生时合法占有或者控制船舶的人。其次，订购必需品的人在对物诉讼提起时，必须要么是船舶所有份额的受益权人，[116]要么是船舶光船租赁的租船人。[117]在这一请求权的对物诉讼当中，该船舶的姊妹船也可以被扣押。[118]如果上面所述条件已经得到满足，光船租船人就可以仅仅通过法律规定对船舶进行约束。 然而，在加拿大，船舶仅仅在这种情况下可能被要求承担对物责任：即，当受益所有权人在该请求权产生时负有个人责任，而且当对物诉讼开始时他仍旧是船舶的受益所有权人。[119]光船租船人不是受益所有权人，[120]因此，如果没有从受益所有权人那里得到实际的或者表见的授权的话，他就不能够设定对物责任。在加拿大，对姊妹船的扣押也是得到允许的。[121] 船舶期租人、程租人、船长、以及船舶代理人只有在被赋予签订合同的以下授权时才能以“合同留置权”约束船舶：a) 基于船舶本身的信用；b)基于满足了上述法定条件的船舶受益所有人（或者，在英国，光船租船人）的个人信用；或者c) 按照“声称原则”，他有表见的授权。不能够预先假定已经有授权去约束船舶，因此，供应商有职责去查证与他们签订合同的另一方是否具有签订该合同的授权。 相反地，在美国法中，除非有反证，以下这些人推定已经被授权通过签订为船舶提供必需品的合同而招致海上留置权：a）船舶所有人；b）船长；c）在供应必需品的港口受委托管理船舶的人；或者d）船舶所有人、租船人、暂时性所有人、或合法占有船舶的同意的购买人所任命的官员或者代理人。[122]船舶供应商没有责任去深究这些以船舶信用签订合同的人是否确实具有相应的授权。即使在租船合同中有明令禁止设定海上留置权的条款，只要上述这些人中有定购船舶必需品之情事，供应商就可以主张基于必需品供应合同的海上留置权。除非在订立合同之时，他已经确实地知晓与他订立合同的人并无订立此种合同去约束船舶的权利。[123] 货物请求人基于货损，对运货的船舶也有基于合同的海上留置权，在美国这也可以是一种侵权留置权。[124]船舶承租人基于因违反租约而遭受的损失也有一种类似的合同海上留置权。[125] 在大陆法国家，基于必需品供应合同的海事特权是得到认可的，但受制于特定的条件。例如，在法国，必需品的供应必须是为保存船舶或者为继续完成航程所必需的，并且，该必需品的供应必须是在船舶远离母港时，由船长在其合法权力范围内出面订购的。[126]这一特权在六个月后就归于消灭。[127]法国法也允许对船舶主张民法上的特别权利（les privileges de droit commun）以及财政特权（也即为着税收的特权），但在优先次序上次于船舶抵押权（ship hypothecs）。[128] d) 对运费与从属运费的留置权 在许多船舶期租合同与光船租赁合同项下，[129]船舶所有人为了保护他对租船人的请求权能够 实现（例如，租金支付请求权），有权对与其并无直接合同关系的第三人（如次级租船人或者提单持有人）应该支付给租船人的运费与从属运费行使留置权。这一留置权只有在这一条件下有效：即，在该第三方向与其有直接合同关系的对方当事人为支付以前、并且在货物交付之前，该欠运费或从属运费的第三方被合理地通知了船舶所有人的留置权。[130] IV．通过扣留的担保 1）船舶制造商与船舶修理商 通过扣留的担保是一种程序的救济，通过这种担保，权利请求人在其请求权尚未得到满足之前，可以拒绝交出他占有中的被告有财产。这种担保权利又被称为占有留置权。 根据1967年留置权与抵押权公约第6条第（1）款，缔约国可以通过国内立法确立留置权与扣留的权利，用来保护未涵盖在第4条的海上留置权保护范围内的请求权，特别是为保护船舶制造商与船舶修理商因付出劳动而具有的请求权，可能会给予他们这样一种留置权或者扣留权，在优先次序上次于海上留置权而优于抵押权（hypothecs），但是，如果船舶制造商或船舶修理商失去对船舶的占有时，这种权利也就消灭（第6条第（2）款）。在1993年留置权与抵押权公约中也包含了类似的条款（第7条）。 通过某国国内法，权利请求人可能会拒绝向他为之提供了服务的对方当事人交出他占有中的船舶。在他是船舶修理商、船舶制造商或者海上救助人的情况下。[131] 2）运费与租金 承运人为获得运费而对尚未交付的货物具有占有留置权，直到请求权得到满足为止。这一权利 无论是在普通法[132]还是大陆法[133]的海商法体系中都存在。只有在交付货物即可付运费款的情况下，该占有留置权才是可执行的。[134]如果运费是可以“预先”支付的，或者是可以在交货后支付的、或者是在“船舶灭失与否”的基础上无论如何都须支付的，那么留置权就不存在。[135]除非合同做了相反的约定。 在美国，除了为担保运费请求权的占有留置权之外，尚有为着船舶租金的占有留置权。[136]而且，这一适用于运费与租金的留置权也适用于滞期费与其它费用，即使在合同中未予以明确规定，[137]与英国相反，在美国这种留置权必须通过合同约定才有。[138]然而，与英国法相同的是，美国法中的占有留置权由于无条件交货而消灭。[139] 与美国类似，法国为租金提供了一种特别权利，[140]为运费提供的特别权利是一种真正的特别权利，然而，这一权利只在从货物交付于收货人起十五日内持续存在，除非货物已经流转于第三人手中。[141] 3）司法出售 1993年留置权与抵押权公约为船舶制造商与船舶修理商提供了一项对船舶司法出售所得款项的请求权利，这一权利次于海上留置权权利人（第12条第（4）款）。在英国，由于缺乏法定职权，承运人因运费请求权而具有的对货物的占有留置权并不导致出售货物的权利，因此，这一留置权随着占有的丧失而丧失。[142]然而，在美国，租船契约属于海事管辖权的范围，承运人可以在无条件交货之前通过对物诉讼程序执行他的留置权。[143]在法国，明确地规定了出售货物的权利。[144] V．优先次序 1）国际公约 1926年留置权与抵押权公约（第2条与第5条）就同一航程产生的海事请求权确立了下列优先次序：a）法律费用；保存船舶与出售船舶的费用；船舶吨税与港务费；税收与公共费用；领港费，合法拘押；b）船员工资；c）海上救助费用、海上援助费用、以及船舶共同海损分摊；d）由于海上碰撞对船舶及港口等等造成的损失；人身伤害与货物/行李灭失与损害；e）为保存船舶及完成航程而购买必需品的花费，如果是船长在远离船舶母港时在其职权范围内订购的。[145]同一类别的请求权按比例清偿（第5条，第1段。），但海上救助费用、共同海损及因必需品供应而产生的请求权按照与其发生时间相反的顺序清偿（第5条，第2段）。[146]然而，如果在这些种类的请求权发生于不同的航程中，那么发生于最后航程的请求权就优先于所有以前的航程所生请求权，除非是由同一雇用合同并且包括若干航程所生的船员工资，这一工资请求权均列入最后航程的请求权（第6条）。[147]以上这些请求权在优先次序上始终高于：a）抵押权以及类似的担保权利；以及b）国内法确定的海上留置权（第3条）。[148] 1967年公约与1993年公约规定了非常相似的优先次序：a）扣押船舶与出售船舶的费用、[149]合法拘押费用；[150]b) 在每一公约第4条中规定确立的海上留置权；[151]c）抵押、质押以及其它类似担保；[152]以及d）国内法确立的海上留置权与扣留权。[153] 在第4条（以及第5条第2款）中的各种海上留置权优先次序按照其文中所列顺序。而在它们各自内部，是按照比例分配的（第5条第3款）；但是，按照1967年公约（第4条第1款V项）规定，由于海上救助、清除船舶残骸、以及共同海损分摊所生海上留置权，以及按照1993年公约（第4条第1款c项），由于海上救助所生海上留置权的优先次序除外。这些留置权优先于产生于在它们之前的其它海上留置权（第5条第2款），在它们自己之间，优先权次序按照与时间顺序相反的次序确定。[154] 根据1993年公约（第12条第3款），为着航行安全利益或者保护海上环境的目的而实施的清除船舶残骸费用，可以通过国内立法赋予某种特别法定权利，在这种情况下它将优先于第4条规定的海上留置权。 根据1967年公约，船舶制造商与船舶修理商扣留船舶的权利可以根据国内立法规定而优先于抵押权，前提是他们必须实际上保持占有船舶（第6条第2款）。根据1993年公约，在船舶司法出售时，实际占有船舶的船舶制造商与船舶修理商必须放弃船舶的占有，将船舶交付由购买人占有，但是，可以就出售船舶所得，后于海上留置权人，但优先于抵押权人受偿（第12条第4款）。 至于抵押权之间的优先次序，要看它们登记所在国的法律（第2条）。 2）普通法法域 a）英国/英联邦 在英国以及英联邦国家，优先次序问题取决于管辖权，但常常是按照以下顺序：a）特别法定权利；b）法院费用与合法拘押费用；c）传统的海上留置权；d）船舶抵押权；以及e）基于合同的请求权（通过对物法定权利加以保护）。[155]船舶修理商与海上救助人的占有留置权优先于所有产生于其占有之后的请求权，但次于扣船费用与合法拘押费用，优先于传统海上留置权，但这种占有留置权并不赋予权利人以出售船舶的权利，并且，当占有被自愿放弃时占有留置权也就消失。[156]只有当它是针对“肇事船舶”（即，海上留置权指向的船舶）实施时，传统海上留置权才优先于抵押权与对物法定权利。如果是针对姊妹船实施，该请求权就不再具有优先的海上留置权地位，而仅仅是一种对物法定权利。[157] 在英国法中，海上救助请求权在传统海上留置权中是列于第一位的优先权，[158]其后才是损害赔偿请求权、船长与船员的工资、以及船长支付的费用。[159]在加拿大，海上救助也是列在第一位的，但列于其后的是船长与船员的工资（无论是在加拿大船舶上的、还在外国船舶上的），以及，当船舶是加拿大船舶时，船长支付的费用。[160]在它们各自内部之间，海上留置权在优先次序上遵循比例平等原则，但海上救助留置权除外，海上救助留置权的优先次序是按照与其产生时间相反的顺序的。[161]抵押权则或者依照其日期先后、或者依照其登记先后确定优先次序。[162]对物法定权利则按照比例清偿。[163] b）美国 在美国，特别法定权利、法院费用、以及合法拘押费用是占第一位的。[164]接下来是“优先的海上留置权”、“优先的抵押权”、以及其它海上留置权。[165]日期先于优先的抵押权提交日期的合同留置权是优先的海上留置权，[166]在这一提交日期后产生的不是合同留置权，而是首要的优先抵押权。而且，在美国，因必需品供应而生的合同留置权在地位上要高于附着于外国（非美国的）船舶上的优先抵押权，即使必需品仅仅是在该抵押权提出以后才提供供应。[167] 在优先的海上留置权这一种类中，优先权包括：a）船员工资、船舶直接雇用的港口工人工资；b）海上救助与共同海损；c）侵权损害赔偿请求权，包括人身伤害与死亡；以及d）先于抵押权产生的必需品供应所生请求权。[168]同一种类而相竞争的留置权的优先次序与它们产生的时间顺序相反。[169]产生于同一航程的合同留置权按照比例平等原则进行分配，但是产生于不同航程的合同留置权中，后面的航程要优先于以前的航程。[170]至于优先的抵押权相互之间，则按照抵押登记的先后确定优先次序。[171] 3）衡平、迟延与财产整理 优先次序问题还取决于这些原则：衡平、迟延与财产整理。 衡平原则指的是双方当事人本着公平正义而商定、并由法院在判决时运用。 例如，关于属于同一性质的请求权（比如两个必需品供应商分别的请求权）应当孰先孰后的问题。[172] 迟延指的是权利人未能在合理的时间范围内主张自己的请求权，这一点，无论是单独地还是与其它情形相结合，都会对债务人或者第三人造成损害，从而使该请求权实现遇到障碍。[173]所以，在优先次序问题上必须考虑到迟延的因素。1926年公约中的航程规则、[174]以及美国实践中的40天规则、90天规则、季节规则等等[175]都是迟延原则被引入以影响优先权的例子。法院在判案中是否运用迟延原则取决于三个标准：a）已经过去了多长时间，b）造成了什么损害，以及c）造成迟延的原因。[176] 财产整理[177]是这样一个公平程序：即，对于在一个以上的物或者在属于债务人的一个以上的资金上拥有担保权利、或者就同一债权对两个或以上的债务人拥有担保权利的债权人，[178]执法官或法院要求该债权人在实现其担保权利时，必须以符合全体债权人最大利益的方式来运用其担保权利。[179] 然而，通常说来，法院会很谨慎，尽量不改变由优先次序规则确立的通常的权利优先次序，除非遇到了“非常特殊的情况”，这一“非常特殊的情况”使得改变次序成为必须，以防止出现明显的不公平，至于要求改变次序的举证责任，则由寻求这一改变的那一方来承担。[180] VI. 海上留置权的转让与代位 1）转让 海上留置权的转让在这一情况下发生：即,当海上留置权的书面合法让与或者出售之情事送达第三方,证明已经对债务人为通知时。[181]请求权以及其附属权利（例如特别权利）的转让在大陆法上是允许的，[182]条件是要通知债务人、或者得到债务人的默许。[183]在英国与英联邦国家，转让可以是“成文法上的”或者“衡平法上的”。债或者“权利财产”[184]的成文法上的合法让与包括“所有法律救济与其它救济”。[185]法定对物权利可以转让，[186]但在英联邦国家，海上留置权是否可以转让还不是很明确。[187] 美国法通常承认海上留置权的转让，[188]同样也承认“预付费用”（即支付给船舶所有人或者其代理人以满足第三方因供应必需品对船舶权利提出的请求权）的转让。[189] 2）代位权 鲍瑟这样定义代位权：[190]“代位权是一个法律上的拟制，通过这一拟制，债权人被认为已经把他的权利、他的起诉权、他的抵押权、以及特别权利转让给了向他为支付的人”。 大陆法区分法定代位权与约定代位权，前者于第三方付清债权人的债务后仅仅依照法律规定就可直接发生，[191]而后者则是根据协议，在第三方清偿了债务之后发生。[192]在大陆法中，请求权的移转或代位自动产生这一结果：即，担保这一请求权的特别权利也随之移转或代位。[193] 英国海商法，就如在“The Petone”案中所见到的那样，[194]在传统上反对海上工资留置权的法定代位（法定移转）。但这种留置权的约定代位（移转）问题尚不确定，就如衡平移转一样。[195]经过司法同意的代位，即以法院命令的形式同意留置权的移转通常是得到承认的。[196] 1967年留置权与抵押权公约第9条与1967年留置权与抵押权公约第10条第（1）款都规定了当请求权本身是移转或代位的对象时，第4条所列海上留置权的同时移转或者代位。[197]然而，1993年公约的第10条第（2）款禁止基于保险合同对船舶所有人为保险赔付而对海上留置权人的代位。[198] VII．海上留置权的消灭——五种消灭的方式 海上留置权在下列情况下消灭：a）由于海上留置权所担保的债务的清偿[199]或者已过时效；[200] b)由于海上留置权所指向的船舶或货物的灭失；[201] c）由于船舶所有人的改变（在对物法定权利的情况下）；[202]d）由于迟延；[203]e）由于船舶的司法出售；[204]以及f）由于弃权。[205] 海上留置权的弃权是有意识地、明示或者默示地，放弃对海上留置权担保的权利的请求。[206] 通常说来海上留置权的弃权是得到承认的，除非该留置权是为担保船员的工资与船员应得的救助报酬份额。[207] 1926年、[208]1967年、[209]1993年[210]留置权与抵押权公约均包含了关于海上留置权时效问题的规定。 VIII．担保的实现 1）大陆法与普通法中的强制执行程序 大陆法中海上留置权的实现方式是诉讼保全（saisie conservatoire），或者在判决之前扣押船舶、运费、或者货物，以保证将来作出的判决能够实现。[211] 普通法则是另一种情况：通过对物令状（现在在英国称为“对物请求权形式”[212]），这种情况下，船舶本身成为被告[213]，并且也被“逮捕”以作为将来判决得以实现的担保。[214] 美国既有对物令状[215]，又有诉讼保全。[216]后者过去是英国海事法庭的一种权力，直到大约1800年左右废除。[217] 1952年扣押船舶公约[218], 以及最近的1999年扣押船舶公约，[219]统一了大陆法与普通法中扣押船舶与船舶诉讼保全的规定，均允许实现船舶担保。[220] 另一种普通法上的救济是马利华禁令（在英国现在改名为“冻结禁令”[221]）。这一禁令并非是对财产进行扣押并且置之于法院的监管之下；也并非是阻止财产的移动。马利华禁令在“Nippon Yusen Kaisha v. Karageorgis”案[222]中首先得到承认。1981年最高法院法案第37（3）部分予以采纳，特别是允许发布一个禁令去阻止将财产转移出法院辖区。[223]具体规定为： “即使一方当事人居住在该法院辖区、是该辖区居民、或者出现在该辖区，也跟某当事人不居住在该法院辖区、不是该辖区居民并且未出现在该法院辖区一样，高等法庭按照第（1）部分规定的权力就可以行使，即：在任何程序中，发出一个中间禁令，禁止该当事人将位于该法院辖区的财产转移到辖区之外、或者禁止其处置该项财产。” 马利华禁令（冻结禁令）在诉讼开始时或者诉讼当中是出于原告的动机而提出，在法院看来显然如果没有发布这样一个禁令，以禁止被告从该法院辖区转移财产、及/或处置一些特殊的财产（不动产或动产），就会危及到原告所诉讼请求的赔偿额的实现。[224] 2）提交契据 如果被告立即提交适当金额的契据、银行担保、或承诺保证书，足以保证诉讼的进行，那么船舶与货物就可以继续其营运以获取赢利。[225]提交的这一担保必须达到足够的数额，可以满足原告合理的最大诉讼请求并加上利息、费用，但不超出扣押财产的金额。[226]如果没有提交足够的担保，船舶就在先予通知之后被司法出售，[227]然后，经适当提交的请求权就可以该出售所得，按照适当的优先次序获得清偿，清偿完毕后的余额还归于船舶所有人。[228]请求权人所获得的清偿要受制于可能适用的国际公约或国内法中的责任限制规定。[229] IX．海上留置权法律的冲突 鉴于在不同的法域中，海上留置权的优先次序往往各自不同，海上留置权法律的冲突可能会发生。许多国家的法律冲突规则承认外国海上留置权法律的标准往往是船旗国法与船舶登记注册地法。[230]其它法域则按照法院地法中的规定去承认外国的海上留置权、并且按照法院地法确定它们的优先次序，就仿佛它们是纯“程序的”救济一样。[231]当然最好是按照它们的准据法将海上留置权与请求权认定为实体权利而不要把它们认定为程序问题。[232]否则，法院地法就将得到适用，结果是将会鼓励挑选法院的行为。[233]如果按照1980年罗马公约的规定，海上留置权将被认为是实体的权利。[234] 至于涉及到第三人的船舶抵押权的优先次序及其效力问题，则由该抵押的登记地法律支配。[235] 国际上通常承认：经有管辖权的法院按照法律进行的司法出售，其效果会是：赋予购买人以无物上负担的完全的所有权。[236] X．结论 民法中海上留置权的概念作为一种对他人财产的权利，是这样一种留置权的真正的概念，无论是在英国法还是在大陆法法域，自从海事法与海商法产生以来就没有改变。如果把海上留置权称为程序上的权利以归入法院地法管辖，那就会鼓励挑选法院的行为，并且产生判决结果不确定、以及缺乏统一性的后果。 部分解决海上留置权法律不统一的问题的办法是广泛接受1993年公约，[237]然而，要做到最后完全的统一，还必须广泛接受某个国际冲突法公约才行。 如果想得到关于本章所论主题的更多的信息，请登录我的网站，“Tetley论法律及其它”，网址是：http://tetley.law.。 [1] Maritime Liens and Mortgages Comvention, adopted at Brussels, April10, 1926, in force June 2, 1931 (hereafter cited as the “Liens and MortgagesConvention 1926”);Maritime Liens and Mortgages Convention, adopted at Brussels, May 27, 1967, notin force (hereafter cited as the “liens and Mortgages Convention 1967”);Maritime Liens and MortgagesConvention, adopted at Geneva, May 6, 1993, not in force (hereafter cited asthe “liens and Mortgages Comvention 1993”). For the English texts of these threeconventions, see Tetley, M.L.C., 2Ed., 1998 at Appendices “A”(pp. 1413-1420), “B” (pp. 1421-1428) and “C” (pp. 1429-1438) respectively. [2] A very early form of ship mortgage placed on the ship by the masteraway from the vessel’s home port. [3] Digest of Justinan, Book XXII, Title II, especially art . 6. See J.-M. Pardessus, Collection de loismaritimes anterieures au XVIIIe siecle, vol I, Paris,1828 at pp. 59, 70, 71. [4] Ibid., Book XLII, Title V. See also Pardessus, ibid. at pp. 64 and 119. [5] Ibid., Book XX, Title IV. See also Pardessus, ibid., at pp. 64 and 112-113. [6] Ibid. See also at p. 66. [7] The Roles came into existence towards the end of the twelfthcentury A.D. See Tetley, M.L.C., 2Ed., 1998, at pp. 13 et seq.See James Shephard, Les Origines des Roles d’Oleron, unpublished master’sthesis, Universite de Poitiers, France, July 1983. this works is completed byShephard’s unpublished D.E.A. thesis, done at the same university, Les Rolesd’Oleron: Etude des Manuscrits et Edition du Texte, 1985. Shephard’s studieshave been described as :”…so far superior to the mimeteenth century work of Twiss…that it is to be hoped that they maybe published…” See Hale and Fleetwood on AdmiraltyJurisdiction (M. J. Prichard & D.E.C. Yale, eds.), Selden Society, vol. CVIII, London,1992 at pp. xxxv-xxxvi, note 7. [8] Shephard, ibid., at pp. 187-188. [9] Respondentia is the placing of a lien on the cargo by the masteraway from the ship’s home port and is dependent on the cargo arriving safely atdestination. [10] Sir Travers Twiss, Black Book of the Admiralty, vol. 3, H. M. S.O., London, 1874 at pp. 6-7, for the Liber Horn Manuscript (the earliest knownmanuscript of the Roles of Oleron). See Shephard, supra, note 7, at pp. 188-189for a photocopy of the Poitiers Manuscript. [11] Poitiers Manuscript, Shephard, supra, note 7, Appendix I, pp. 189-190. [12] Twiss, vol. 2, 1874 at pp. 378-380. cited in Shephard, supra, note7, at p.210. [13] Tetley, M.L.C., 2Ed., 1998, at pp. 56 and 473. [14] See, for example, the civil codes of [15] Privileges for delict were only introduced into Franch law in 1949by Law no. 49-226. See Tetley, M.L.C.,2 Ed., 1998, at p. 388,notes 3 and 4; Rodiere & dupontavice, 12 Ed., 1997, at para. 124; Remond-Gouilloud,2 Ed., 1993, at para. 175. [16] Tetley, ibid. [17] Jacson, 3 Ed., 2000, at para. 1.23;Tetley, ibid., at p.56. [18] See, for exmple, the International Convention for the Unificationof certain Rules Relating to the Arrest of Seagoing Ships, adopted at Brussels,May 10, 1952, in force February 24, 1956 (the “arrest Convention 1952”); and other provisions on ships“arrest”, in the International Convention on Certain Rules Concerning CivilJurisdiction in Mtters of Collision, adopted at Brussels, May 10, 1952, inforce September 14, 1955, (the “civil Jurisdiction Convention 1952”), art. 1(b); and the InternationalConvention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Penal Jurisdictionin Matters of Collisions or Other Incidents of Navigation, adopted at Brussels,May 10, 1952, in force November 20, 1955, (the “Penal Jurisdiction Convention 1952”), art. 2. [19] Supra, note 1. [20] Remond-Gouilloud, 2 Ed., 1993, at para 263 and 264. [21] Cf. the Lens and Mortgages Convention 1967, which provides nospecial legislative rights, but which grants a maritime lien for “port, canaland other waterway dues and pilotage dues” (art. 4(1)(ii)) and for wreck removal (art. 4(1)(v)). Polution is arguably covered by art. 4(1)(iv)(claims against the owner based on tort). See also the Liens andMortgages Convention 1993, which provides a maritime lien for “port, canal andwaterway dues and pilatage dues” (art. 4(1)(d) and which permits a specialright of almost first priority for wreck removal done by public authorities inthe interests of safe navigation or for the protecttion of the environment(art. 12(3)). [22] E.g. Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, U. K. 10 & 11Vict., c. 27. [23] [24] [25] Intervention Convention 1969, adopted at Brussels, November 21, 1969, in force May 6,1975, art. I(!); Law of the Sea Convention 1982, adopted at Montego Bay,Jamaica, December 10, 1982, in force November 16, 1994, art. 220(@) and (^)(detention of polutting ship); [26] E.g. Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, 10 & 11vict., c. 27, in the [27] See, however, Meeson, 2 Ed., 2000 at paras. 6-003 to 6-008,who does discuss “statutory powers of detention and sale” as a first priorityamong maritime claims. See also Jacson, 3 Ed., 2000, at paras.15.143-15.144 and 23.169. [28] Tetley, M.L.C., 2 Ed., 1998, at pp. 65-66. [29] Law of the Sea Convention 1982, art. 21(1)(h), art. 33(!)(a); [30] [31] United States Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugsand Psychotropic Substances, adopted at Vienna,December 20, 1988, and in force November 11, 1990, art. 5(1)(b); [32] See the procedural rules on civil forfeitures established in the [33] See generally Tetley, “Vessel Forfeitures for Drug andCri,inal Offenses: A Comparative Study”, (1996) 27 JMLC 243-279; Tetley, M.L.C.,2Ed., 1998 at pp. 169-215. [34] Lien and Mortgages Convention 1926, art. 2(1); Liens and MortgagesConvention 1993, art. 12(2). Note, however, that the Liens and MortgagesConvention 1967, art. 11(2) recognizes only costs of arrest and sale, and notexpresses in custodia legis. [35] The Frebch Civil Code, arts. 2101(1) and 2104(1)(granting aprivilege on movables and immovables for law costs-frais de justice); theQuebec Civil Code 1994, art. 2651(1)(making “legal costs and and all expensesincurred in the common interest” a “prior claim”, i.e. privileged); and theLouisiana Civil Code, art. 3252(2), granting a privilege for “judicial costs”against both movables and immvoables. See also the civil codes of [36] Meeson, 2 Ed., 2000 at paras. 6-032 to 6-033; Jackson, 3Ed., 2000 at paras. 15.99-15.104 and 23.9; Schoenbaum, 3 Ed., 2000,vol. 1 at pp. 522-523; Tetley, ibid., at pp. 225-232 ( [37] The Margaret, (1835) 3 Hagg. 238 at p. 240, 166 E. R. 394 at p.395: The Russland, [1924] P. 55 at p. 57; The Qween of the South, [1968] P. 449at pp. 464-465; The world Star, [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 452 at p. 454; The Rubi Sea,[1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 634 at p. 636 (Q. B.); Meeson, 2 Ed., 2000 atpara. 6-033; Jackson, 3 Ed., 2000 at paras. 15.102-15.104 and 23.9;Canada: Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR 98/106, in force 25 April 1998, Rule491(c); United Kingdom: Civil Procedure Rules 1998, S. I. 1998/3132, inforceApril 26, 1999, as amended, with effect from March 25, 2002, by Part 61(Admiralty Claims) and Practice Direction 61 (Admiralty Claims). See PracticeDirection 61 (Admiralty Claims), para. 5. 1(1) andAdmiralty Form No. ADM4 (Application and Undertaking for Arrest and Custody). [38] The Rana, (1921) 8 Ll. L. Rep. 369; The Athena, (1921) 8 Ll. L.Rep. 482; Meeson, 2 Ed., 2000, at para 6-034. [39] The Immacolata Concezione, (1884) 9 P. D. 37 at p. 42; The Rana,(1921) 8 Ll. L. Rep. 369 at P.370; The Athena, (1921) 8 Ll. L. Rep. 482 at p.483; The Conet, [1965] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 195 at p. 197; The Falcon, [1981] 1Lloyd’s Rep. 13 at p. 17; Meeson, 2 Ed., 2000 at para. 6-034. For theUnited States, see Supplemental Rules E(2)(b) and E(4)(e). [40] For the [41] Larsen v. New York Dock Co., 166 F. 2d 687, 1948 AMC 756 (2 Cir. 1948); Tetley,ibid. [42] The Leoborg (No.2), [1964] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 380 at p. 384; New YorkDock Co. v. S.S. Poznan (The Poznan), 274 U.S. 117 at p. 122, 1927 AMC 723 atpp. 726-727 (1927); Associated Metals v. Alexander’s Unity, 41 F. 3d 1007 at p.1018, 1995 AMC 1006 at p.1023 (5 Cir. 1995); Ost-West-Handel Bruno Bischoff GmbH v. Project Asia Line Inc.,1997 AMC 652 at p. 653 (E.D. Va. 1996); Calogeras Marine Inc. v. M/V OceanLeader, 1998 AMC 872 at pp. 876-877 (E.D. La. 1997); Osborn Refrigeration v.The Atlantean I, [1979] 2 F.C.661 at pp. 688-689 (Fed. C. Can.); Tetley, M.L.C., 2 Ed., 1998 atpp. 228-230; Schoenbaum, 3 Ed., 2001, vol. 1 at p. 522. But where theexpenses are incurred outside the supervision of the Admiralty Marshal andwithout court authorization, they may be refused the priority of custodia legisexpenses. Fraser Shipyard v. Expedient, 2000 AMC 543 at pp. 558-561 (Fed. C.Can. 1999 per Hargrave, P.). [43] The Poznan,supra, note 42. [44] The Immacolata Concezione, (1884) 9 P.D. 37 at p. 47; The WorldStar, supra, note 37, [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 452 at p. 455. [45] The Westport(No. 2), [1965] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 549. [46] The General Serret, (1925) 23 Ll. L. Rep. 14 at p. 15; Meeson, 2Ed., 2000 at para. 6-033. For the U.S., see Payne v. S.S. Tropic Breeze, 423 F. 2d 236, 1970 AMC 1850 (1 Cir. 1970);G.E. Credit v. Mission Explorer, 668 F.2d 811, 1983 AMC 958 (5 Cir. 1982); Hvide Marine v. M/v Pacific Mako, 1999 AMC65 at p. 67 (S./D Ga. 1998). [47] See Certain Underwriters at Lloyds v. Kenco Marine Terminal Inc., 81 F. 3d 871 at pp. 872-873, 1996 AMC 1422 atpp. 1423-1424 (9 Cir. 1996) (equal allocation); Beauregard Inc. v. SwordServices, LLC, 107 F. 3d 351at pp. 353-354 and note 8, 1997 AMC 1788 at p. 1791, note 8 (5 Cir. 1997);Dedolph v. Pacatlantic Fisheries Inc., 2001 AMC 286 at p. 290 (W.D. Wash.1999)(proportional allocation). [48] [1897] P. 226 at p. 242. See also Jackson, 3 Ed., 2000 at para. 2.35; Meeson, 2 Ed., 2000, at para. 1-044; Tetley, M.L.C.,2 Ed., 1998 at pp. 65, note 1 and 886-888. [49] The Ripon City, [1897] P. 226 at p.242. [50] The Tolten, [1946] P. 135 at p. 150, (1946) 79 Ll. L. Rep. 349 atp. 356 ( [51] The Nestor, 18 Fed. Cas. 9 at p. 13 (No. 10, 126)(C.C.D. Me. 1831per Story, J.). The term “maritime lien” was first used in this decision. [52] The Bold Buccleugh, (1850-51) 7 Moo. P.C. 267 at p. 285, 13 E.R.884 at pp. 890-891 (P.C.). See also Chinese Mar C, art. 28. [53] The Tolten, [1946] P. 135 at p. 150, (1946) 79 Ll. L. Rep. 349 atp. 356 ( [54] Tetley, M.L.C., 2 Ed., 1998 at pp. 886-888 ( [55] See, for example, Liens and Mortgages Convention 1926, arts. 2, 4and 10; [56] The Ripon City, [1897] P. 226 at p.242. See also Chinese Mar C, art. 21, defining “maritime lien”. [57] The Tolten, [1946] P. 135 at pp.149-150, (1946) 79 Ll. L. Rep. 349at p. 356 ( [58] For a comparison of the maritime lien with the statutory right inrem, see Jackson,3 Ed., 2000 at paras. 18.13-18.14. [59] Jackson, 3 Ed., 2000 at paras. 2.35 and 18.1; Meeson, 2Ed., 2000 at para. 1-044. [60] Bottomry was a primitive form of ship mortgage, whereby the master,by means of a “bottomry bond”, could pledege the ship (its “bottom” and keel)as security for a loan. Bottomry was useful before the advent of modern meansof communications, in permitting the master to raise money needed to purchasegoods and services required to complete the voyage when the vessel was far fromits home port. Respondentia was the similar pledging of the cargo by the masteras security for a loan. The major disadvantage of bottomry and respondentia wasthe lender lost his claim for repayment if the ship was lost during a voyage asa result of any of the perils enumerated in the bottomry bond. See Meeson, 2Ed., 2000 at paras. 2-137 to 2-139; Jackson, 3 Ed., 2000 at paras.2.92-2.97. [61] Tetley, M.L.C., 2 Ed., 1998 atpp. 555, 577-578 (necessaries generally); 646, 652-654 (repairs); 676-681(stevedoring); 694, 703-705, 706-708 (towage); 729-730, 738 (cargo damageclaims against the carrying ship); 732 (charterer’s claims). [62] Maritime Commercial Instruments and Liens Act, 46 U.S.C. 31301(4).See also Schoenbaum, 3 Ed., 2001, vol. 1 at pp. 497 and 508-510. [63] 46 U.S.C. 31342(1) and (2). [64] See Piedmont & Georges Creek Coal Co. v. Seaboard FisheriesCo., 254 U.S. 1, reprinted, 2001 AMC 2692 (1920), decided under the former 46U.S.C. Appx. 971, where the operative term was “furnishing”. See also SilverStar Enterprises Inc. v. M/V Saramacca, 82 F. 3d 666, 1996 AMC 1715 (5 Cir. 1996); FraserShipyard v. Expedient, 2000 AMC 28 (Fed. C. Can. 1999 per Rouleau, J.), citing Tetley,M.L.C., 2 Ed., 1998 at p. 595. [65] 46 U.S.C. 31301(5)(A) to (F). [66] See Schoenbaum, 3 Ed., 2001, vol. 1 at p. 525. [67] See Schoenbaum, ibid. [68] “Average” comes from the term avere, used in the early Italian seacode of Pisa of 1160, which became avere in thecode of Genoaof 1341, whence the French term avare (loss). See generally Tetley, M.L.C.2 Ed., 1998 at pp. 439-441; Tetley, M.C.C., 3 Ed., 1988 atpp. 713-714. The right to a general average contribution in respect of lossesresulting from jettison of cargo to lighten the ship and in respect of thecutting of the mast or the cutting of the anchors to save the ship and cargo ina storm, nay be traced as far back as the unwritteb Rhodian Law of c. 800 B.C.See Digest of Justinian, Book XIV, Title II (sixth century A.D.). See also the role of Oleron (c. twelfthcentury A.D.) art. 8, 9 and 32 (Twiss, Black Book of the Admiralty, vol. 1,London, 1873 at pp. 88-89); Ordonnance de la Marine 1861 ( [69] Tetley, M.L.C., 2 Ed., 1998 at pp. 439-440; Tetley,M.C.C., 3 Ed., 1988 at p. 713; Meeson, 2 Ed., 2000 at para.2-129; “There is a general average act when,and only when, any extraordinary sacrifice or expenditure is intentionally andreasonably made or incurred for the common safety for the purpose ofpresereving from peril the property in volved in a common maritime adventure.” Under the York/Antwerp Rules 1994,however, the existence of a real or apprehended peril is no longer anindispensable condition of a general average act, because certain rules (e.g.Rules X(a) and XI(a) on port of refuge expenses) in effect permit general averagewithout peril. [70] Tetley, M.L.C., 2Ed., 1998 at pp. 439-440. See alsoRalli v. Troop, 157 U.S. 386 at p. 397 (1895): “the right to general averagemay be considered as resting not merely on implied contract between the partiesto the common adventure, but rather on the established law of the sea…” [71] Liens and mortgages convention 1926, art. 2(3); Liens and MortgagesConvention 1967, art. 4(1)(V). Note, however, that the Liens and Mortgages Convention 1993 doesnot provide a maritime lien for general average contributions. Such a liencould nevertheless be granted by national legislation, as permitted by art.6,but it could not last more than six months (unless the vessel concerned wasarrested or seized in that period) or more than sixty days from the sale of thevessel to a purchaser in good faith; and such a national lien would be inferiorin ranking to a ship mortgage or hypotheque (art. 6(b) and (c)). [72] See, e.g., [73] Tetley, M.L.C., 2 Ed., 1998 at pp. 446-447; Jackson,3 Ed., 2000 at paras. 2.230-2.233; Cargo ex Galam (Cleary v. McAndrew),(1863) 2 Moo. P.C. (N.S.) 216 at pp. 235-237, 15 E. R. 883 at pp. 890-891(P.C.). The possessory lien is enforceable against the cargo consignee, even ifthat party is not liable to contribute in general average because he was notthe cargo owner when the general average act occurred. See CastleInsurance v. Hong Kong Shipping C., [1984] A.C. 226 at p. 234 (P.C.); Meeson,2 Ed., 2000 at para. 2-136. [74] United Kingdom: Supreme Court Act 1981, [75] Tetley, ibid. at p. 447 and jurisprudence cited there. [76] Tetley, ibid. at p. 452. See also Federal Court Act, R.S.C.1985, c. F-7, sects. 22(2)(q), 43(2) and (3). [77] Liens and Mortgages Convention 1926, art. 2(1) (pilotage duesincurred in bringing the ship into the last port, i.e. the port of seizure);Liens and Mortgages Convention 1967, art. 4(1)(ii)(pilotage dues generally); Liens and Mortgages Convention 1993,art. 4(1)(d)(pilotage dues generally). See also Chinese Mar C, art. 22(3);Swedish Mar C, c. 3, sect. 36(2). [78] Maritime Commercial Instruments and Liens Act, 46 U.S.C. 31301(4)and 31342; The Western Wave, 77 F.2d 695 at p.698, 1935 AMC 985 at p. 990 (5 Cir. 1935); Diaz v. The S.S.Seathunder, 191 F. Supp.807 at p. 826, 1961 AMC 561 at p. 589 (D. Md. 1961); Blair v.M/V Blue Spruce, 315 F. Supp. 555 at p. 557, 1970 AMC 1298 atp. 1300 (D. Mass. 1970); Tetley, M.L.C., 2 Ed., 1998 at p. 461; Schoenbaum,3 Ed., 2001, vol. 1 at p. 508. [79] Tetley, M.L.C., 2 Ed., 1998 at p. 457. The PremierHeard, (1856) 6 Lower [80] The Premier Heard, supra, note 79; Osborn Refrigeration v. TheAtlantean I, [1979] 2 F.C. 661 atp. 676 (Fed. C. Can.); Ultramar Canada Ltd. V. Pierson Steamship Ltd., [1983]ETL 404 at p. 409 (Fed. C. Can.). But see also Ostgota Enskilda Bank v. StarwayShipping Ltd., (1994) 78 F.T.R.304 at p. 306 (Fed. C. Can.), where the existence of a maritime lien forpilotage in [81] Law no. 67-5, art. 31(2)(providing a maritime lien for pilotagedues for services rendered to bring the ship into the last port, i.e. the portof seizure). See also Tetley, ibid. at p. 464. See also ItalianNavigation Code (1942), art. 552(1). [82] Tetley, M.L.C., 2 Ed., 1998 at p. 460; Meeson, 2Ed., 2000 at paras. 2-095 to 2-097. See also Supreme Court Act 1981, [83] United Kingdom: Pilotage Act 1987, U.K. 1987, c. 21, sect. 10(7),read with the Harbours Act 1964, U.K., 1964, c. 40, sect. 26(3) and theHarbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847, 10 & 11Vict., c. 27, sect. 44;Canada: Pilotage Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-14, sect. 44. [84] French Civil Code, art. 2119. See also Remond-Gouilloud, 2 Ed.,1993, at para. 265; Rodiere & du Pontavice, 12 Ed., 1997 atpara. 98; Rodiere, Le Navire, 1980 at para. 108. [85] Rodiere & du Pontavice, 12 Ed., 1997 at para. 97. [86] Law of December 10, 1874. [87] Rodiere & du Pontavice, 12 Ed., 1997 at para. 98. [88] Rodiere, Le Navire, 1980 at paras. 108-110. [89] Law of August 21, 1893. Other civilian countries enacted shipmortgage legislation only in the twentieth century, e.g. [90] Rodiere, ibid. at paras. 126, 134 and 164. See also SwedishMar C, c. 4, sect. 3(17). [91] Keith v. Burrows, (1876) 1 C.P..D.722 at p. 736 (C.P.). The mortgage gives this “constructive notice” by sendinga notice to the mortgagor, charterer, insurer and/or bill of lading holdersthat he intends to exercise his right of ownership. “Actual notice”, on theother hand, may be given by the mortgagee replacing the master with his ownrepresentative or by arresting the ship or intervening in an action in remtaken by another creditor. See Tetley, M.L.C., 2 Ed., 1998 at P.485. The action in rem is available to enforce a mortgage lien in the [92] Remond-Gouilloud, 2 Ed., 1993 at para. 265, note 3; Rodiere,Le Navire, 1980, para. 110. [93] See generally Tetley, M.L.C., 2 Ed., 1998 at pp.483-484. The mortgagee’s security may be imperiled, for example, by allowingthe ship to remain burdened with maritime liens. See The Mnor, [1907] P. 339 atp. 362 ( [94] [95] [96] A legal mortgage is one complying with the statutory requirementsof the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, [97] The Merchant Shipping Act 1995, [98] Tetley, ibid., at p. 481. [99] 46 U.S.C. 31301(6)(A) and (B) and 31322. The latter provision wasamended by the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 3901 at p.3970, so as to repeal the former restrictions requiring American citizenshipfor owners and mortgages of ships burdened with preferred ship mortgages. The “filing”(registration) requirements for preferred mortgages on [100] 46 U.S.C. 31322(c)(1). See generally Tetley, M.L.C., 3ed., 1998 at pp. 501-502. See also Governor and Company of the Bank ofScotland v. The Nel, [2001] 1 F.C. 408 at p. 431 (Fed. C. Can. Per Hargrave, P.)(upholding the validity of an “accountcurrent mortgage” on a fleet). [101] See, for example, [102] Supra, note 1. [103] Law no 67-5 of January 3, 1967, arts. 43 and 49. The formalities ofregistration (completed at the customs house of the ship’s place ofregistration or construction) are provided for by Law no. 67-5, art. 48 and byDecree no. 67-967 of October 27, 1967 (Decret no. 67-967 du 27 octobre 1967portant statut des navires et autres batiments de mer, J.O. November 4, 1967,p. 10836, as amended), arts. 15, 16 and 25. An undivided share of a vessel mayalso be hypothecated. See Law no. 67-5, arts. 24 and 55. The instrument must bein writing, but need not be in notarial (authentic) form. The registration mustbe renewed every ten years to remain effective. See Law no 67-5, art. 52. Seegenerally Tetley, M.L.C., 2 Ed., 1998 at pp. 517-521. See alsoChinese Mar C, art. 13 (mortgage registration formalities) and 16 (mortgages ofjointly-owned vessels); Swedish Mar C, c. 3, sects. 2 and 22-35 (“InscriptionProcedure”); Italian Navigation Code (1942), arts. 566 (mortgages on shipsunder construction) and 568-570 (mortgage registration formalities). [104] [105] Cato v. Irving, (1852) 5 De G. &Sm. 210 at p. 224, 64 E.R. 1084 at p. 1091 (Vice-Ch.); Liverpool Marine Creditv. Wilson, (1872) L.R. 7 Ch. App. 507 at p. 511( [106] Law no. 67-5 of January 3, 1967, art. 46, second para. See also Rodiere& du Pontavice, 12 Ed., 1997 at para. 108; Remond-Gouilloud, 2 Ed.,1993 at para. 267. See also Italian Navigation Code (1942), art. 573(hypothec does not extend to freight unless expressly agreed). [107] The Pan Oak, [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 36 at p. 39; The Eurostar,[1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 106 at pp. 111 and 112. See also for [108] Oil Shipping v. Royal Bank of Scoland, 10 F. 3d 176 at p. 183, 1994 AMC 879 at p. 891 (3 Cir.1993). [109] [110] [111] The Heinrich Bjorn, (1885) 10 P.D. 44 ( [112] 46 U.S.C. 31301(5)(A). [113] Oil Shipping v. Royal Bank of [114] Liens and Mortgages Convention 1926, art. 13 (ship operators andprincipal charterers); Liens and Mortgages Convention 1967, arts. 4, secondpara. And 7(1); Liens and Mortgages Convention 1993, art. 6, first para. Seealso Chinese Mar C. art. 21; Swedish Mar C, c. 3, sect. 36, first para. (owneror operator). [115] Liens and Mortgages Convention 1926, art. 15 (warships andgovernment vessels appropriated exclusively to the public service); Liens andMortgages Convention 1967, art. 12(2); Liens and Mortgages Convention 1993,art. 13(2). See also Chinese Mar C, art. 3; Swedish Mar C, c. 4, sect. 1 thirdpara. [116] The term “beneficial owner” has been defined to mean “equitableowner” and is intended to provide for cases in which a ship is operated under atrust. See The I Congreso del Partido, [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 536 at p. 561,[1978] Q.B. 500 at p. 538. Beneficial ownership refers to the ownership whichincludes a power to dispose of the property. See The Permina 3001, [1979] 1Lloyd’s Rep. 327 at p. 329 (Singapore C.A.). See generally Tetley, M.L.C.,2 Ed., 1998 at pp. 573-575, 1039-1041 ( [117] Supreme Court Act 1981, [118] Supreme Cuort Act 1981, sect. 21(4)(b)(ii). A sister ship is any other ship of which, at the time when theaction is brought, the party liable on the claim in personam is the beneficialowner as respects all the shares in it. See generally Tetley, M.L.C.,2 Ed., 1998 at pp. 1032-1040. [119] Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 43(3). In [120] Mount Royal / Walsh Inc. v. TheJensen Star, [1990] 1 F.C. 199 atpp. 209-210 (Fed. [121] Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 43(8). See SwedishMar C, c. 4, sect. 4, second and third paras. See generally Tetley, M.L.C.,2 Ed., 1998 at pp. 1041-1046. As in the U.K., Canadian courts sometimes “piercethe corporate veil”, allowing sister ship arrest of a vessel in a different registeredownership from the vessel to which the claim relates, where there is evidencethat, in fact, both vessels belong to and are controlled by the same owner andthat they have been registered as belonging to different one-ship companies,merely as a sham or fraud in order to render the true shipowner judgment-proof.See Governor and Commany of the Banks of [122] 46 U.S.C. 31341(a) and (b). See also Schoenbaum, 3 Ed., 2001,vol. 1 at pp. 511-513. By 46 U.S.C. 31342(a)(3), the necessaries supplier isnot required to allege or prove that credit was given to the vessel. SeeSunrise Shipping Ltd. V. M/V American Chemist, 1999 AMC 2906 at p. 2921 (E.D. La. 1999). [123] Gulf Oil Trading Co. v. M/V Caribe Mar, 757 F. 2d 743, 1985 AMC 2726 (5 Cir. 1985); TTTStevedores of Texas Inc. v. M/V Jagat Vijeta, 696 F. 2d 1135 (5 Cir. 1983); Redcliffe Americas Ltd.V. M/V Tyson Lykes, 806 F. Supp.69, 1993 AMC 1027 (D.S.C. 1992), reversed on other grounds, 996 F. 2d 47, 1993 AMC 2294 (4 Cir. 1993).See also Schoenbaum, 3 Ed., 2001, vol. 1 at pp. 513-514; Tetley, M.L.C.,2 Ed., 1998 at pp. 605-606. [124] Oriente Commercial Inc. v. M/V Floridian, 529 F. 2d 221 at p. 223, 1975 AMC 2484 at p. 2487 (4Cir. 1975); Schoenbaum, 3 Ed., 2001, vol. 1 at p. 498; Tetley, M.L.C.,2 Ed., 1998 at pp. 714-715. In the [125] The charterer’s contractual lien in the [126] Liens and Mortgages Convention 1926, art. 2(5); Law no. 67-5 ofJanuary 3, 1967, art. 31(6); Italian Navigation Code (1942), art. 552(6). Note,however, that by Law no. 69-8 of January 3, 1969, art. 12, the privilege ofart. 31(6) of Law no. 67-5 also arises when the necessaries have been orderedby the ship’s agent (consignataire) acting in the master’s place. See generallyTetley, M.L.C., 2 Ed. 1998 at pp. 607-609; Remond-Gouilloud, 2 Ed.,1993 at para. 276; Rodiere & du Pontavice, 12 Ed., 1997 atparas. 125 and 276; Governor and Company of the Bank of [127] Law no. 67-5 of January 3, 1967, art. 39. The time limitation runsfrom the arising of the claim, by virtue of Decree no. 67-967 of October 27,1967, art. 10. Note that art. 39 of Law no. 67-5 establishes a one-year prescriptionperiod for privileges other than those arising from supplies. The six-monthprescription also applies to claims for repairs and other services by art.10(4) of Decree no. 67-967. See also Italian Navigation Code (1942), art.558(1). See Rodiere & du Pontavice, 12 Ed., 1997 at para. 132;Remond-Gouilloud, 12 Ed., 1997 at para. 281. [128] Law no. 67-5 of January 3, 1967, art. 33. See also Remond-Gouilloud,2 Ed., 1993 at para. 126; Rodiere & du Pontavice, 12 Ed., 1997at para. 126. See also Italian Navigation Code (1942), art. 575. [129] See, for example, New York Produce Exchange (NYPE) form of timecharter clause 18; Baltime form of time charter clause 18. For an example, seeThe Spiros C., [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 319 (C.A.). See also the “Barecon’89” form of Standard Bareboat charter, Part II, cl. 16. See generally Wilford et al, Time Charters, 4Ed., 1995 at pp. 482-485 ( [130] See, for example, N.H. Shipping Corp. v. Freights of the S.S.Jackie Hause,181 F. Supp.165 at p. 169 AMC 83 (S.D.N.Y. 1960); Finora Co. Inc. v. Amitie Shipping Ltd., 54 F. 3d 209, 1995 AMC 2014 (4 Cir. 1995);The Nanfri, [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 201 at p. 210 (H.L.); The Chrysovalandou Dyo,[1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 159 at p. 165 (Q.B.); Wilford et al., Time Charters,4 Ed., 1995 at pp. 484 (U.K.) and 493 (U.S.). A similar requirement forclear notice of the lien prior to payment and delivery applies where thecharterparty grants the owner a lien on cargoes belonging to third parties, SeeBerdex International Inc. v. M/V Kapitan Grishin, 1992 AMC 1559, 1564 (N.D.Cal. 1992). [131] Concerning ship repairers, see Tetley, M.L.C., 2 Ed.,1998 at pp. 646-649 ( [132] [133] See, for example, [134] [135] Kirchner v. Venus, (1859) 12 Moo. P. C. 361 at p. 390, 14 E.R. 948at pp. 959-960 (P.C.); How v. Kirchner, (1857) 11 Moo. P.C. 21 at p. 34, 14E.R. 602 at p. 607 (P.C.); Tetley, M.L.C., 2 Ed., 1998 at p. 752.In the [136] The Searaven, 288 F.Supp. 77 at p. 80, 1968 AMC 704 at p. 708 (C.D. Cal. 1967); reversed on othergrounds, Beverly Hills B. & T. Co. v. Nav. Almirante S.A., 437 F. 2d 301, 1971 AMC 890 (9 Cir. 1971); Tetley,M.L.C., 2 Ed., 1998 at p. 769; Schoenbaum, 3 Ed., 2001, vol.1 at p. 503. See also Chinese Mar C, art. 141. [137] The Hyperison’s Cargo, 12 Fed. Cas. (No. 6987) 1138 at p. 1139 (D.Mass. 1871); The Saturnus, 250 F.407 at p. 411 (2 Cir. 1918); Tetley, M.L.C., 2 Ed., 1998 at pp.770-771 (possessory lien under general maritime law), 772-773 (contractualpossessory lien). See also the Pomerene Act 1916/1994, 49 U.S.C. 80109. [138] See, for example, The Miramar, [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 129 at p. 134(H.L.). See also Tetlet, M.L.C., 2 Ed., 1998 at p. 770; Wilfordet al ., Time Charters, 4 Ed., 1995 at p. 479. [139] Depositing the goods in a werehouse does not constitute a waiver ofthe lien, however, if the parties clearly intended to preserve it by suchdeposit. See Bulkley v. The Naumkeag Steam Cotton Co., 65 [140] Law no. 66-420 of June 18, 1966, art. 2. [141] Ibid., art. 23. [142] See Tetley, M.L.C., 2 Ed., 1998 at pp. 760 and 762; Meeson,2 Ed., 2000 at para. 6-030; Jackson, 3 Ed., 2000., at paras.20.2-20.2; Wilford et al,. Time Charters, 4 Ed., 1995 at p. 480. See alsoTappenden v. Artus, [1964] 2 Q.B. 185 at p. 195 ( [143] See in general, Tetley, M.L.C., 2 Ed., 1998 at p.766-767, See also (re hurisdiction) The Eddy, 72 U.S. (5 Wall.) 481 at p. 494(1866); Schoenbaum, 3 Ed., 2001, vol. 2 at p. 520, note 14; Wilford etal., Time Charters, 4 Ed., 1995 at p. 490. [144] Decree no. 66-1078 of December 31, 1966, art. 53. [145] See also [146] See also [147] See also [148] See also [149] Liens and Mortgages Convention 1967, art. 11(2); Liens andMortgages Convention 1993, art. 12(2). [150] By art. 12(2) of the Liens and Mortgages Convention 1993, the costsof arrest and sale include such costs as upkeep of the vessel and crew wages,repatriation costs and social insurance contributions. [151] The Liens and Mortgages Convention 1967, art. 4 grants maritimeliens for: a) wages; b) port, canal and waterways dues and pilotage; c) deathand personal injury claims; d) property damages (tort) claims in “directconnection with the operation of the vessel”; and e) salvage, wreck removal andgeneral average contributions. See also Chinese Mar C, art. 22; Swedish Mar C,c. 3, sect. 36. The Liens and Mortgages Convention 1993, art. 4, grantsmaritime liens for: a) wages (including repatriation costs and social insurancecontributions); b) death and personal injury claims; c) salvage; d) port, canaland waterways charges and pilotage; and e) damage (tort) claims for physicalloss caused by the vessel’s operation, other than loss or damage to cargo,containers and passengers’ effects carried on the ship. Both the 1967 and the1993 Conventions exclude maritime liens for injury and damage claims resultingfrom nuclear fuel and radioactive material, as well as (in the 1993 Convention)oil pollution damage. See art. 4(2) of each Convention. [152] Liens and Mortgage Convention 1967, art. 5(1); Liens and MortgageConvention 1993, art. 5(1). [153] The Liens and Mortgages Convention 1967 and 1993, art. 6 permitcontracting states to create, by national law, maritime liens securing claimsother than those enumerated in art. 4 of each Convention. Furthermore, art. 6of the 1967 Convention and art. 7 of the 1993 Convention empower contractingstates, by national law, to grant rights of retention (similar to common lawpossessory liens) to shipbuilders and ship repairers to secure their claims forwork done constructing or repairing ships. [154] Under the 1967 Convention, art. 5(4), claims of contributions ingeneral average are deemed to have accrued on the date on which the generalaverage act was performed. Under art 5(4) of both the 1967 and the 1993Conventions, claims for salvage are deemed to have accrued on the date on whichthe salvage operation was terminated. See also Chinese Mar C, art. 23; SwedishMar C, c. 3, sect. 37, second and third paras. [155] Tetley, M.L.C., 2 Ed., 1998 at pp. 884-888 ( [156] Tetley, ibid. at p. 886 ( [157] See Fraser Shipyard v. Expedient, 2000 AMC 543 at pp. 571-572 (Fed.C. Can. Per Hargrave, P.); Governor and Company of the Royal Bank of [158] Salvage has priority over all prior maritime liens, but not oversubsequent damage liens. See Meeson, 2 Ed., 2000 at paras. 6-068 to6-071; Jackson, 3 Ed., 2000 at para. 23.136. The former [159] Meeson, 2 Ed., 2000 at para. 6-071; Jackson, 3 Ed., 2000at paras. 23.134-23.143; Tetley, M.L.C., 2 Ed., 1998 at pp. 887.The lien for wages is given a liberal interpretation. See The Ever Success,[1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 824 at p. 829, and is sometimes preferred to the damageslien. See The Ruta, [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 359. [160] [161] Meeson, 2 Ed., 2000 at para. 6-065; Jackson, 3 Ed., 2000at paras. 23.135 (damage), 23.141 (wages), 23.143 (disbursements) and 23.137(salvage); Tetley, 2 Ed., 1998 at p. 887. See also Fraser Shipyard v.Expedient, 2000 AMC 543 at p. 563 (Fed. C. Can. 1999 per Hargrave, P.), wherefour [162] Registered ship mortgages generally rank according to priority oftheir registration. See Jackson,3 Ed., 2000 at para. 23.148; Tetley, M.L.C., 2 Ed., 1998 atpp. 888 ( [163] Meeson, 2 Ed., 2000 at para. 6-064; Jackson, 3 Ed., 2000at paras. 23.158-23.159; Tetley, ibid. [164] Tetley, ibid. at p. 873. [165] 46 U.S.C. 31326(b)(1); Schoenbaum, 3 Ed., 2001, vol. 1 atpp. 524-525; Tetley, ibid. at pp. 873-875. [166] 46 U.S.C. 31301(5)(A). [167] 46 U.S.C. 31326(b)(2). See also Schoenbaum, 3 Ed., 2001,vol. 1 at p. 526; Sunrise Shipping Ltd. V. M/V American Chemist, 1999 AMC 2906at p. 2909 (E.D. La. 1999); Fraser Shipyard v. Expedient, 2000 AMC 543 at pp.552 and 577 (Fed. C. Can. 1999 per Hargrave, P.). [168] [169] Tetley, M.L.C., 2 Ed., 1998 at pp. 870-872; Schoenbaum,3 Ed., 2001, vol. 1 at p.524. [170] Schoenbaum, ibid. [171] 46 U.S.C. 31321(a)(2). [172] Tetley, M.L.C., 2 Ed., 1998 at pp. 855-856; Meeson,2 Ed., 2000 at para. 6-075; Jackson, 3 Ed., 2000 at para. 23.9. See also Scott Steel v. The Alarisa, (1997) 125 F.T.R. 284 at p. 288. (Fed. C. Can. 1997per Richard, J.); Freiser Shipyard v. expedient, 2000 AMC 543 at p. 559 (Fed.C. Can. 1997 per Hargrave P.). In the United States, “equitable subordination”has been permitted where: 1) a “superior” claimant is in a position of controlover the debtor, 2) the claimant has engaged in inequitable conduct; 3) themisconduct has resulted in injury to the creditors of the bankrupt or conferredan unfair advantage on the claimant; and 4) the equitable subordination of theclaim is not inconsistent with applicable statutory provisions. SeeOst-West-Handel Bruno Bischoff GmbH v. Project Asia Line Inc., 970 F. Supp. 471 at p. 486, 1998 AMC 989 atp. 1011 (E.D. Va. 1997). [173] Tetley, M.L.C., 2 Ed., 1998 at pp. 855-856, 859-863; Schoenbaum,3 Ed., 2001, vol. 1 at p. 529; Meeson, 2 Ed., 2000 at paras. 5-063to 5-064. See also The Galaxias, [1989] 1 F. C. 386 at pp. 422-423 (Fed. C. Can.); Fraiser Shipyard v.Expedient, 2000 AMC 543 at pp. 593-594 and 603 (Fed. C. Can. 1999 per Hargrave,P.)(re laches and a ship mortgage lien). [174] Liens and Mortgages Convention 1926, art. 6, first para., givespriority to claims secured by a liens which attach to the last voyage overthose attaching to the previous voyage. Liens resulting from claims relating tothe same voyage rank according to the order in which they are set out in art. 2(art. 5, first para.). [175] Tetley, M.L.C., 2 Ed., 1998 at pp. 870-871. The40-day rule is prevalent for harbour vessels (e.g. tugs) in New York Harbour;a 90-day rule applies idem in Puget Sound; a season rule applies in the GreatLakes; and a year rule applies in eastern and Gulf Coastports. See Schoenbaum, 3 Ed., 2001, vol. 1 at p. 524. [176] Tetley, bid., at p. 857. [177] Tetley, bid., at pp. 857-858 and 901. [178] The Priscilla, (1859) Lush. 1, 167 E.R. 1; Moore-McCormack LinesInc. v. Richardsom, 1962 AMC 804 at p. 823 (2 Cir. 1961). In the [179] Gilmore & Black, 2 Ed., 1975 at p. 794; Tetley, M.L.C.,2 Ed., 1998 at pp. 857-858. [180] See The Pickaninny, [1960] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 533 at p. 537; ScottSteel v. The Alarisa, [1996] 2 F.C.883 at pp. 899-900 (Fed. C [181] Tetley, ibid., at p. 1217. [182] See the civil codes of [183] See the civil codes of France (art. 1690 c. c.); Quebes 1994, (art. 1641 c.c.); Louisiana (arts. 2643 c.c.); Italy (arts. 1264 c.c.); and Spain (art. 1198 c.c.). [184] By the Law of Property Act, 1925, [185] Law of Property Act, 1925, supra, sect. 136(1)(b). [186] The Wasp, (1867) L.R. 1 A.& E. 367 (per Dr. Lushington). [187] Although bottomry liens have always been regarded as transferable,other maritime liens have been held unassignable without express judicialauthorization. See Meeson, 2 Ed., 2000 at para. 1-051. See the morenuanced position taken by Jackson,3 Ed., 2000 at paras. 18.77-18.86; The Sparti, [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 618 atp. 623 (Hong Kong High C.) and many decisions cited there. Judicialauthorization, however, generally renders the lien assignable. See Tetley, M.L.C.,2 Ed., 1998 at p. 1231; Fraser Shipyard v. Expedient, 2000 AMC 543 at pp.556-557 (Fed. C. Can. 1999 per Hargrave, P.); Governor and Company of the Bankof [188] Tetley, M.L.C., 2 Ed., 1998 at pp. 1231-1232. See,for example, Sunrise Shipping Ltd. V. M/V American Chemist, 1999 AMC 2906 at p.2911 (E.D. La.1999). [189] Ibid. at p. 1233. See also Schoenbaum, 3 Ed., 2001, vol. 1at pp. 499-500. In the [190] R.J. Pothier, Introduction to Title XX, Coutumes des Duche,Bailliage et Prevote d’Orleans, Paris, 1760, para. 66. [191] French Civil Code, art. 1251; Quebec Civil Code 1994, art. 1656. Amexample of legal subrogation relevant to maritime law is that of the privilegedcreditor who pays off the claim of another privileged creditor having a claimsuperior in ranking to his own, in order to benefit from that higher ranking.This would be permitted by the French Civil Code, art. 1251(1) and the WuebecCivil Code 1994, art. 1656(1). See also the civil codes of Louisiana(art. 1829(1) c.c.); [192] Tetley, M.L.C., 2 Ed., 1998 at p. 1218. See also theFrench Civil code, art. 1250(1); QuebecCivil Code 1994, art. 1653; LouisianaCivil Code, art. 1827; Italian Civil Code, art. 1201; [193] Rodiere, Le Navire, 1980 at para. 159. [194] [1917] P. 198 at p. 208; Tetley, M.L.C., 2 Ed., 1998at pp. 1222-1224. Legal assignments were, however, allowed in some bottomarycases. See also Jackson,3 Ed., 2000 at para. 18.76; Tetley, M.L.C., 2 Ed., 1998 at p.1224. [195] The peton, ibid.; Tetley, ibid., at p. 1223. [196] Tetley, ibid., at p. 1226-1227 ( [197] See also Chinese Mar C, art. 27; Swedish Mar C, c. 3, sect. 48. [198] See also Swedish Mar C, c. 3, sect. 49. [199] Meeson, 2 Ed., 2000 at para. 1-047; Jackson, 3 Ed., 2000at paras. 18.2 and 18.91; Schoenbaum, 3 Ed., 2001, vol. 1 at p. 527. [200] See, for example, Merchant Shipping Act 1995, [201] Meeson, 2 Ed., 2000 at para. 1-049, who also notes that thecapture of the res and its condemnation as prize extiingushes liens. See also Jackson, 3 Ed.,2000 at paras. 18.116; Schoenbaum, 3 Ed., 2001, vol. 1 at p 527. Seealso Chinese Mar C, art. 29(3). [202] [203] Meeson, 2 Ed., 2000 at paras. 1-048 and 5-064; Jackson, 3 Ed.,2000 at paras. 11.35-11.36 and 19.38; Schoenbaum, 3 Ed., 2001, vol.1 at p. 529; Tetley, M.L.C., 2 Ed., 1998 at pp. 857, 863-868,882-883 and 901. [204] Meeson, 2 Ed., 2000 at paras. 1-049; Jackson, 3 Ed., 2000at paras. 18.119; Schoenbaum, 3 Ed., 2001, vol. 1 at p. 527. See also [205] Schoenbaum, 3 Ed., 2001, vol. 1 at p. 528; Tetley, M.L.C.,2 Ed., 1998 at pp. 1241-1259; Jackson,3 Ed., 2000 at paras. 18.114. [206] Tetley, M.L.C., 2 Ed., 1998 at p. 1244. See alsoBennecke v. Conn. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 105 [207] Merchant Shipping Act 1995, [208] Art. 9 provides for the extinction of liens after one year, and sixmonths in the case of supplies. The lex fori governs interruption, andextensions up to three years are allowed where it has proven impossible toarrest the ship in the terrtorial waters of the State of domicile or principalplace of business of the defendant. See also [209] Art. 8 provides for a one-year prescriptive period, withoutinterruption or suspension, unless the lienor has been legally prevented fromarresting the ship. See also Chinese Mar C, art. 29(1) and last para. (one-yearlimitation) and art. 26 (extinction of lien if not enforced within 60 daysafter sale of the vessel, where court has made a public declaration at requestof assignee); Swedish Mar C, c. 3, sects. 40 (vessel) and 60 (cargo). [210] Art.9 provides for a one-year limitation, without interruption orsuspension, unless arrest of the ship has been prevented by law. [211] [212] Civil Procedure Rules, 1998, S.I. 1998/3132, as amended with effectfrom March 25, 2002, Part 61, rule 61.3.(2) and Practice Direction 61, para. 3.1 and Admiralty Form No. ADM1. [213] The House of Lords, in The India Grace (No.2), [1998] 1 Lloyd’sRep. 1 (H.L.), rejected as outmoded and no longer necessary, the historic “personificationtheory” of the action in rem, (whereby the ship was conceived of as being thedefendant), and insisting that the true defendant in such an action is theshipowner. Note, however, that that case concerned an action to enforce a claimsecured by a statutory right in rem, which is really an action in personamenforceable by arrest of the ship in rem, and therefore only a “quasi in rem”.It remains arguable, therefore, that in a “true in rem claim”(such as onearising out of a maritime lien or a ship mortgage or a claim for ownership orpossession of the vessel), the ship is still the real defendant, because theclaim is truly against the vessel itself or some proprietary interest in it.See Meeson, 2 Ed., 2000 at paras. 3.003-3.016. [214] The Longford, (1889) 14 P.D. 34 at p. 38 ( [215] Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Supplemental Rules for CertainAdmiralty and Maritime Claims, Rule C. See also Tetley, M.L.C., 2Ed., 1998 at pp.938 and 941-943; Tetley, Arrest, supra, note 211 atpp. 1932-1934. [216] Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Supplemental Rules for CertainAdmiralty and Maritime Claims, Rule B. See also Tetley, M.L.C., 2Ed., 1998 at pp. 938-941; Tetley, Arrest, supra, note 211 at pp.1934-1936. In the [217] A. Browne, A Compendious View of the Civil Law and of the Law ofthe Admiralty, vol. II, J. Butterworth, London, 1802 (New York Edition, 1840) at pp.434-435; F.L. Wiswall, supra, note 214 at pp. 17 and 164; Tetley, M.L.C.,2Ed., 1998 at pp. 973-975. [218] Adopted at Brussels,May 10, 1952, and in force February 24, 1956. On the arrest conventiongenerally, see F. Berlingieri, Berlingieri on Arrest of Ships: A Commentary onthe 1952 and 1999 Arrest Convention, 3 Ed., LLP, Londonand Hong Kong, 2000; Tetley, M.L.C.,2Ed., 1998 at pp. 958-962. [219] Adpoted at Geneva,March 12, 1999, but not in force. For the English text, see Tetley,Arrest, supra, note 211, Appendix at pp. 1976-1985, with a commentary at pp.1962-1975. [220] See, for example, [221] In the United Kingdom, the Mareva injunction, now known as a “freezingin junction”, may be granted either to restrain the removal from England andWales of assets located in that jurisdiction or to restrain dealing with anyassets worldwide (see Civil Procedure Rules 1998, S.I. 1998/3132, Part 25(Interim Remedies), at Rule 25.1(1)(f) and Practice Direction Part 25 (InterimInjuctions) at para. 6). Examples of both types of freezing injunction areprovided in the annexes to that Practice Direction. In [222] [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 137 (C.A.). It was confirmed in Mareva CiaNaviera S.A. v. Intl. Bulkcarriers (The Mareva), [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 509(C.A.), which gave the injunction its name. [223] The Mareva injunction is also used in [224] The Niedersachsen, [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 600; Svendborg v. Wansa,[1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 559 at p. 567, upheld, [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 183 (C.A.). [225] Meeson, 2 Ed., 2000 at paras. 4-066 to 4-071; France: Decreeno. 67-967 of October 27, 1967, art. 27; Swedish Mar C, c. 4, sect. 6, secondpara., and sect. 7(1); United Kingdom: Civil Procedure Rules, 1998/3132, asamended with effect from March 25, 2002, Part 61, rule 61.5(10) (right of partywho has filed an acknowledgmant of service to apply for an order specifying theamount and form of security to be provided) and rule 61.6 (“Security in claimin rem”); Canada: Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR 98/106, in force April 25,1998, Rules 485 and 486(1) and (2) and 487 (1)(b); United States: SupplementalRule E(2). See also Tetley, M.L.C., 2 Ed., 1998 at p. 1111. [226] The Moschanthy, [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 37 at p. 44; The Tribels,[1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 128 at p. 130; The Bazias 3, [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 101 atp. 105 ( [227] Liens and Mortgages Convention 1926, art. 9, fourth para; Liens andMortgages Convention 1967, art. 10; Liens and Mortgages Convention 1993, art.11; France: Dcree no. 67-967 of October 27, 1967, arts. 41-43; Canada: FederalCourt Rules, 1998, SOR 98/106, Rules 490(1)(a) and 492(1)(a) and (b); UnitedKingdom: Civil Procedure Rules 1998/3132, as amended, Part 61, rule 61.10 andPractice Direction 61, paras. 9.1-9.8. See generally Tetley, M.L.C.,2 Ed., 1998 at pp. 1091-1119. [228] See generally for [229] Liens and Mortgages Convention 1926, art. 7; Liens and MortgagesConvention 1967, art. 14(2); Liens and Mortgages Convention 1993, art. 15;Limitation Convention 1976, art. 13(2); Chinese Mar C, art. 30; Swedish Mar C,c. 3, sect. 41, second para. See also Jackson,3 Ed., 2000 at paras. 15.122-15.125; see also Chap 7, “Limitation ofShipowners’ liability”, supra. [230] [231] This is the case with the United Kingdom since the decision of thePrivy Council in The Halcyon Isle, [1981] A.C. 221, [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 325,1980 AMC 1221 (P.C.). Many other former British colonies, such as [232] The [233] See Tetley, Int’l Conflict, 1994 at pp. 570-573 forvarious arguments contesting the Privy Council’s decision in The Halcyon Isle,supra, note 231. See also generally Jackson,3 Ed., 2000 at paras. 26.163-26.174. [234]The RomeConvention 1980, art. 10(1)(c), provides that the law applicable to thecontract shall govern the “consequences of breach” of the contract, which would include maritimeliens. The Convention is also restrictive as to what matters are consideredprocedural at art. 1(2)(h), 10(1)(c) and 14. See Tetley, Int’l Conflict, 1994at pp. 580-581. [235] Liens and Mortgages Convention 1967, art. 2; Liens and MortgagesConvention 1993, art. 2; Chinese Mar C, art. 271. The 1926, 1967 and 1993Conventions, at art. 1, all provide for the international recognition ofmortgages and hypothecs on ships duly registered in a public register. See alsoSwedish Mar C, c. 3, sect. 19. [236] [237] The 1993 Convention will come into force only after ten States haveagreed to be bound by it (art. 19). See generally F.. Berlingieri, “The 1993Convention on Maritime Liens and Mortgages”, [1995] LMCLQ 57-76; J.-M.Alcantara, “A Short Primer on the International Convention on Maritime Liensand Mortgages, 1993”, (1996)27 JMLC 219-241. |
|
|
