Admiralty practices around the world differ significantly. An example of this diversity is the discrepancy between the approaches to in rem claims in common and civil law jurisdictions. In common law countries, the in rem claim is the basic procedure on which creditors in admiralty matters rely for pre-judgment security and post-judgment enforcement. The arrest of the ship places it under judicial custody pending adjudication of the claim. If the court subsequently allows the claim, the judgment is then enforceable by judicial sale against that ship. In civil law jurisdictions, where in rem claims do not exist, an in personam claim may be combined with a "saisie conservatoire", or “conservatory attachment”. A saisie permits any property of a debtor, including ships, to be seized and detained under judicial authority, pending a subsequent judgment which may be enforced against that property.
However, despite this diversity, this speech today will be selective in its material. It will address two important areas of admiralty law – namely, procedure and beneficial ownership – and will consider how they operate within the jurisdictions of Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and Italy.
For ease of current and future reference, I have distributed a copy of my notes for this speech. I have also attached as Annex I a small bibliography of resources which discuss arrest procedures and beneficial ownership in overseas jurisdictions.
2. An Outline Review of Australian and Overseas Admiralty Practice
2.1 Australia
So as not to reiterate the paper presented by Justice Ryan, which touched upon the jurisprudence regarding arrest and ownership, the section of this presentation relevant to Australian practice will briefly address the procedural requirements necessary to arrest a ship and then discuss the concept of beneficial ownership.
Arrest Procedure
Jurisdiction is conferred on the Federal Court of Australia in respect of in rem claims by s 10 Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth). The Admiralty Rules 1998 (Cth) prescribe the procedure for the arrest of a ship.
An application for an arrest warrant must be made in accordance with Form 12 in the Admiralty Rules, which requires the applicant to specify the name of the ship and its port of registry: Rule 39. The application must be supported by an affidavit from the applicant in accordance with Form 13, which requires the applicant to depose to the short particulars of the claim and to what extent, if any, that claim has been satisfied: Rule 39(2). An affidavit complying with these requirements is sufficient to lead to the issuance of an arrest warrant; although Rule 40(1) states that the Registrar “may” issue the warrant, this would not seem to confer a discretion to refuse to issue the warrant if all of the above requirements are met: see The Varna [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 263 (per Scott LJ).
The warrant must be served by a Marshal, and the affidavit in support of the application for the warrant must be served at the same time: Rule 43(1)-(1A). The warrant must be executed within 6 months after it was issued: Rule 42(1). It may be executed on any day of the year: Rule 46. The warrant is executed in the same way as initiating process is served, and may be served either concurrently, after, but not before the initiating process is served: Rules 43(2)-(3). Execution of a duly issued warrant can be prevented at the request of the applicant or by order of the court: Rule 43(5). Execution of a warrant must be subsequently verified by affidavit: Rule 45.
Under s 34 of the Admiralty Act, a party who obtains an arrest of a ship “unreasonably and without good cause” will be liable to pay damages to a party to the proceeding, or to a person who has an interest in the ship or property, being a party or person who has suffered loss or damage as a direct result. However, to my knowledge, no such award of damages has ever been given, which suggests that the threshold of “unreasonably and without good cause” is a difficult one to meet, requiring something akin to a bad faith application for arrest.
Beneficial ownership
The word "owner" is not defined in Australia’s Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth). Moreover, and unlike the equivalent New Zealand Act, to which I will later refer, neither s 17 nor s 19 include the concept of “beneficial ownership” when addressing in rem claims.
A recent case which considered the issue of “ownership” at length was the Full Court decision in Kentv The Vessel Maria Luisa (2003) 130 FCR 12. Having first accepted the proposition, which had previously been accepted by Sheppard J in Malaysia Shipyard and Engineering Sdn Bhd v Iron Shortland(1995) 59 FCR 535, that the notion of “owner” extended beyond mere registered ownership, the majority of the Court, comprised Hely J and myself with Moore J in dissent, held at [72] that “owner” in s 19(b) of the Admiralty Act “is concerned with title to, or proprietorship of the ship at a particular point in time”. Provided that the corporate arrangement is not designed by sham or fraud to avoid liability, then the mere practical or commercial capacity of a person does not render them the owner of a ship. In TheMaria Luisa, the parent company “was in a position to take steps, which if taken prior to the relevant date, would have resulted in [the parent] becoming the owner of the ship” (at [71]). Had the parent taken the necessary steps to acquire the decisive legal title and control over the ship, then that would amount to something greater than an equitable interest or mere capacity to control the ship, and could be sufficient to render it the “owner” under s 19(b). However, in the Maria Luisa, no such exercise of the parent company’s potential control over the subsidiary company’s property had occurred, and it remains to be seen whether on the facts of another case a beneficial interest may have been elevated into legal “ownership”. The position in Australian law on “beneficial ownership” was recently summarised by Allsop J in his presentation to the 2003 MLAANZ conference, which is available on the Court’s intranet, said of this case:
‘The essence of the phrase “beneficial ownership” … is equitable ownership, involving the right to sell and pass ownership rights. It is a question of title, not economic utilisation. It is a question of legal analysis of proprietary rights, not a practical analysis of substantive economic domain. … [T]he Full Federal Court in Kent v The Vessel Maria Luisa [2003] FCAFC 93, examined what might be said to be the outer limits of the recognition of the separateness of legal form.’
2.2 United Kingdom
Arrest procedure
Section 20 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 vests Admiralty jurisdiction in the High Court of the United Kingdom, and in particular in the Admiralty Court of the Queen’s Bench Division. The admiralty jurisdiction extends to those claims encompassed by ss 20 (1)(a) and 20(2) of the Act. It applies to all ships, whether British or not, and to all claims, wherever they arise: s 20(7). The arrest of ship procedure is governed by paragraphs 5.1 to 5.7 of Practice Direction 61 – Admiralty Claims, supplementing part 61 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
According to the Practice Direction, arrest of ships is a remedy available only as an inherent part of an in rem claim. An in rem claimant is entitled to have the ship arrested by the Admiralty Court after filing an application to arrest, which is to be accompanied by a declaration providing particulars of the nature of the claim and of the property to be arrested, and the amount of any security sought: para 5.3. The declaration should also provide, where relevant, the name of the person liable in personam, and the relevant position of such person in relation to the ship against which the in rem claim is brought. After these procedural requirements are satisfied, the court will then issue an arrest warrant: para 5.2.
The Admiralty Marshal effects service of the arrest warrant by attaching it to “the outside of the [ship] in a position which may reasonably be expected to be seen”: paras 3.6.1(a) and 5.5. Where it is not reasonably practicable to serve the warrant upon the res itself, arrest may be effected by service of a notice upon those in charge of the property: para 5.5. Following the arrest, a ship may not be moved unless the court orders otherwise, and it may be immobilised or prevented from sailing, as considered appropriate by the Admiralty Marshal.
The threat of arrest is often sufficient to compel the owner of the ship to offer alternative security for the claim. This is usually presented in the form of a contractual guarantee by a bank or a payment into court.
A ship will be released from arrest upon the order of the court, the requests of the arresting party and any parties who have entered cautions against release, or upon judicial sale of the res: Rule 61.8(4). Damages for a wrongful arrest of a ship may awarded pursuant to s 34 Admiralty Act, but only where the aggrieved party can demonstrate that the arrestor acted with mala fides or gross negligence: The Evangelismos (1858) 166 E.R. 1174. Mere unjustified or erroneous arrest would not entitle the defendant to damages: The Eudora (1879) 4 P.D. 208.
Beneficial ownership
The landmark case regarding ownership in the United Kingdom is I Congreso del Partido [1978] Q.B. 500. In that case, Goff J held that the concept of beneficial ownership refers to “such ownership as is vested in a person who, whether or not he is the legal owner of the vessel, is in any case the equitable owner”. Its origins are thus to be found in the concept of trust ownership, that is, ships which are owned and operated under the “cloak” of a trust, namely, a nominee company holding property in trust for a beneficiary.
When identifying the “beneficial owner” of a ship, the Court will look to see who owns all the shares in it (or the charterer of it under a charter by demise). This is so irrespective of whether the claim gives rise to a maritime lien on the ship. This is reflected in s 21(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1981, which is equivalent to s 3(4) of the Administration of Justice Act 1956, which incorporated the 1952 Arrest Convention into English Law.
Courts in the United Kingdom have sometimes “lifted the corporate veil”, looking behind the façade of registered ownership in order to ascertain the beneficial ownership of a vessel. This occurs where a plaintiff has demonstarted that the corporate façade has been manipulated as part of a sham intended to defraud creditors. In both The Aventicum [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 184 and The Saudi Prince [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 255, it was considered appropriate for the court to investigate the true ownership of the vessels in light of the purported changes of ownership which occurred after the claim but before the issue of the writ.
2.3 Canada
Arrest procedure
Arrest in rem in Canada follows broadly similar procedures to those employed in the United Kingdom. Under s 22(2) of the Federal Court Act 1985, the Federal Court of Canada has nation-wide admiralty jurisdiction; thus, an action commenced at one registry can bring about an arrest of a ship in any Canadian port. The specific procedure for the arrest of a vessel is governed by Part 13 of the Federal Court Rules 1998.
A strict application of the procedure for arrest requires that a warrant of arrest is issued by a “designated officer” of the Federal Court, and this document is served by a sheriff together with a statement of claim and the claimant’s “affidavit to lead warrant”: Rule 482(1). Service is then to be effected by the sheriff attaching the warrant, statement of claim and affidavit to “a conspicuous part of the ship”: Rule 482(1). Although service can only take place if the ship is within Canadian jurisdiction, neither the flag nor ownership of the ship further restricts Canadian admiralty jurisdiction: Ferguson v Arctic Transport Ltd [1997] 135 F.T.R. 243. Service must occur no more than sixty days after the statement of claim is issued: Rule 203(1).
However, strict adherence to procedural requirements is not always required. For example, in Elders Grain Co. v The Ralph Misener [1997] 125 F.T.R. 206, the Federal Court held that the service of a statement of claim in an action in rem on the master aboard the ship, rather than by posting the documents on the mast or another “conspicuous part of the ship”, was valid. In addition, the Court has recognised some scope for substituted service within Rule 479(2). That rule provides that “alternate service” on a person who appears to be in charge of the vessel is permissible if access to the vessel cannot be obtained. An example of the application of this rule in practice was the subject of the Court’s consideration in B.C. Ltd v Hills [1998] 144 F.T.R. 236, where service on the vessel’s owner was held to be valid because access to the vessel itself was prevented by the owner’s aggressive Rottweiler.
An arrested ship will be released upon the giving of security: Rules 485-489. Usual forms of security include a bail bond, a payment into court or a bank guarantee. The quantum of the security is at the Court’s discretion, but generally the Court has stated that the quantum must be sufficient to cover the plaintiff’s “reasonably arguable best case” without exceeding the value of the vessel: Amican Navigation Inc v Densan Shipping Co [1997] 143 F.T.R. 284. If the claim in rem is allowed, the arrested vessel may be sold by judicial sale (free from any liens) to pay the debt: Rule 490. Distribution of the proceeds of sale is according to a system that ranks priority of claims, although any such ranking is subject to variation if equity so demands: Scott Steel Ltd v The Alarissa [1996] 2 F.C. 883.
Canada closely follows the admiralty practice in the United Kingdom regarding damages for wrongful arrest. A defendant must show that the arrest was prompted by bad faith or gross negligence in order to attract damages: Armada Lines Ltd v Chaleur Fertilizers Ltd [1977] 2 SCR 617.
Beneficial ownership
Under section 43(3) of the Federal Court Act 1985, a ship can only be the subject of a statutory in rem claim if, at the time the claim is commenced, the ship is beneficially owned by the same person who was the beneficial owner at the time when the cause of action arose: see also Fibreco Pulp v Star Shipping A/A [1998] 145 F.T.R. 125. An in rem claim can therefore be defeated if the vessel is sold after the cause of action occurred but prior to the service of the arrest warrant. In Canada, beneficial ownership refers to ownership of the vessel proper rather than to the ownership of shares in the vessel.
A “beneficial owner” is not statutorily defined in Canada. The leading case on the definition of the term is the Federal Court’s decision in The Jensen Star [1990] 1. F.C. 199. In that case, the company which owned the vessel at the time when the cause of action arose sold it to a second company, which in turn demise-chartered the vessel back to the original company. The Court was asked to determine whether an in rem claim lay against the second company, despite the fact that it was not the beneficial owner at the time of the cause of action. In allowing the claim, the Court concluded (at 209) that the title of beneficial owner is one “characterized essentially by the right to dispose of the res”. The Court continued (at 210) that this includes someone “who stands behind the registered owner in situations where the latter functions merely as an intermediary”. This definition admits of the possibility that a parent or holding company may be deemed a beneficial owner, despite not being registered as the owner. A limitation on the breadth of this definition, however, was identified by the Court in The Looiersgracht (1995) 85 F.T.R. 265. Closely paralleling English law, the Court stated (at 269) that a mere “beneficial interest”, such as an ability to manage a vessel, will not qualify as “beneficial ownership”.
As these cases suggest, Canadian courts are prepared to lift the corporate veil to determine with whom true beneficial ownership lies. Indeed, the Federal Court expressly did so (at 270) in The Looiersgracht, thus logically expanding its reasoning in The Jensen Star. However, as those exceptional cases made clear, the lifting of the veil will only render the “true” beneficial owner liable where the Court has evidence that that owner manipulated the corporate structure in order to create a sham or fraud to avoid liability.
2.4 New Zealand
Arrest procedure
As in the case of Canada, New Zealand’s arrest in rem procedures are broadly similar to the United Kingdom’s. Jurisdiction over in rem claims is conferred on the New Zealand High Court by the Admiralty Act 1973. The specific procedure for the arrest of a ship is regulated by Part 14 of the High Court Rules.
In New Zealand, the application for an arrest warrant is the first procedural step when commencing an in rem claim. The application must be in the format prescribed in Form 72 of the High Court Rules: Rule 776(1). The application must be supported by an affidavit which deposes to (a) the name of the party seeking issuance of the warrant; (b) the nature of the claim by reference to s 4(1) of the Admiralty Act; (c) the name and/or nature of the property to be arrested; (d) whether the claim has been satisfied to any extent; and (e) whether any caveat against the issue of the warrant has been filed: Rule 776(4). If all of these requirements are met, the Court’s Registrar must issue a warrant in the format prescribed in Form 74: Rule 776(7). The applicant for an arrest warrant must provide an indemnity or, if requested, a payment by way of security for “the fees, expenses, and harbour dues” incurred in the arrest of the res: Rule 776(4)(b).
Service of the warrant is effected by attaching a copy of it to the “bridge or some conspicuous part of the ship”: Rule 772(1)(a). The High Court Rules expressly allow substituted service, which is achieved by leaving a copy of the warrant “with the person apparently in charge of the ship”: Rule 772(1)(b). The warrant must be served by the Registrar or a person lawfully authorised, and it may be served on any day, including public holidays, Sundays, Good Friday and Christmas Day: Rule 776(8)-(9). Once the warrant has been served, it is contempt of Court for the Master or any other person having notice of the arrest to move that ship from where it is lying: Rule 776(11).
An arrested ship will only be released upon conclusion of a judicial sale or the issuance of an instrument of release by the Court: Rule 778. Any party interested in the ship may request its release; release will occur upon order of the Court or, if the Court so directs, if all other interested parties consent: Rule 778(4). Although the possibility of re-arrest is not provided for in the High Court Rules, the New Zealand Court of Appeal has held that it is able to make such an order as an incident of its power to give directions where a procedure is not otherwise specified: Rule 767(1). In The Clarabelle [2002] NZCA 129, the Court expanded the circumstances in which re-arrest could be ordered. Rather than confining re-arrest to only exceptional circumstances, as historically has been the case in the United Kingdom, the Court held that re-arrest should be ordered after consideration of the balance between possible oppression or unfairness on the ship’s owner and the possible unfairness to a plaintiff, particularly one who has only received security which was in a fixed sum or inadequate to cover expenses. Finally, damages may be awarded for a wrongful arrest if it can be established that the arrest was malicious or contrary to good faith.
Beneficial ownership
Unlike the situation in Australia when a plaintiff seeks to make an in rem claim against a “surrogate ship” under s 19 of the Admiralty Act 1988, New Zealand’s Admiralty Act 1973 expressly provides that the owner of a sister-ship is the person who “beneficially owns” that ship: s 5(2)(b)(ii). According to that Act, beneficial ownership of a ship arises when the putative owner possess “all the shares therein”: s 5(2)(b)(i). Ownership of a majority of the shares in a ship is therefore not sufficient to establish beneficial ownership.
A unique nuance in New Zealand’s concept of beneficial ownership derives from the overlap between admiralty law and private international law. In Vostok Shipping Co Ltd v Confederation Ltd [2000] 1 NZLR 37, the Court of Appeal was asked to consider whether the beneficial ownership of a foreign ship should be determined according to the law of the flag-state law (lex situs), which was Russian, or the law of New Zealand (lex fori). The Court first held (at 45) that it had jurisdiction to decide the question of beneficial ownership according to New Zealand law. Having heard submissions that Russian law had no concept of beneficial ownership, the Court concluded that a recent purchaser of the ship was nevertheless the beneficial owner according to New Zealand law (at 46). The fact that legal title in the ship had not yet been transferred in the Russian register was therefore not determinative of the dispute in the lex fori. The practical reality which falls from the decision of the Court of Appeal is that a ship can be said to be “beneficially owned” by a person even if it is a foreign ship which would not be deemed beneficially owned under the law of the flag-state.
2.5 Italy
Arrest procedure
Articles 682-686 of the Codice della Navigazione (Code of Navigation, “CN”) and articles 669bis-669quatuordecies and 671-687 of the Codice di Procedura Civile (Code of Civil Procedure, “CPC”) lay down the procedural rules relating to the arrest of a ship (sequestro conservativo della nave) in Italy.
The court competent for the arrest is that which has jurisdiction on the merits of the case. The exceptions to this are where the Italian courts have no jurisdiction because they are a forum non conveniens, or where the dispute has to be submitted to arbitration. In such particular circumstances, the court competent for the arrest is the court presiding over the jurisdiction where the ship lies (lex fori). Thus, the presence of the ship in an Italian port becomes a condition for the granting of the arrest warrant, a requirement which sometimes complicates service and arrest due to the short period for which ships normally stay in port.
In order to apply for arrest, the arrestors must deposit with the competent court pleadings which describe the basis and reasons for the arrest. The pleadings should be accompanied by all necessary supporting documentation. Photocopies or faxes of the original documentation is generally accepted.
The arrest is granted or denied at a hearing in court. However, if the provision of such prior notice to the owner of the ship may prejudice the enforcement of the warrant, it may be granted ex parte. Any such ex parte issuance of a warrant must be affirmed or revoked at a subsequent hearing within 15 days: art 669novies (CPC). In Italian law, prima facie evidence establishing prospects of success in the claim is called for to obtain an order of arrest. This is in contrast with the procedure in many other countries where such a prima facie case is not required.
The order of arrest is served on both the owner and the master of the ship. This requirement of dual service is strict, as reflected in the decision of the Tribunal of Taranto in Bulk Oil International Chartering Ltd v Baltic Current Inc (6 May 1994) [1995] Dir Mar 759, in which the Tribunal held that service of arrest on the master alone renders the order a nullity. In cases where the arrest is granted for a claim secured by a maritime lien against a person other than the owner of the ship, service of the arrest must be made on both the debtor and the owner of the ship: art 683 (CN). Unless service is effected within 30 days from the date of issue of the warrant, the warrant ceases to be effective: art 675 (CPC). A provisional order of detention may be issued in cases where it is expected that some time will be required before the warrant of arrest is issued or before its service can be effected: art 646 (CN).
With express authority the court, it is possible to arrest a ship of Italian nationality during the course of navigation by means of a radiogram: art 683 (CN). After receiving a warrant of arrest in this manner, the ship is enjoined from leaving the port in which it lies at that time, or, if the arrest is made in the course of navigation, its next port of destination: art 682 (CN).
After service is effected, the order of arrest is listed on the registry’s record of the ship and on the ship’s actual certificate of registry. This renders the arrest valid as against any third party. Any proceedings on the merits should commence within a time limit fixed by the court not exceeding 30 days after the arrest occurred; failure to commence proceedings within the stipulated timeframe renders the arrest ineffective: art 669octies (CPC).
Release of the ship may be obtained from the court upon the provision of security in the form of a bail for which ever is the less of the amount of the claim and the costs and the value of the property arrested: art 684 (CPC). Security may be also given through domestic bank guarantees or, with the claimant’s consent, foreign bank guarantees.
The defendant may be entitled to damages for wrongful arrest if the arrestor acted in the proceeding in bad faith or with gross negligence: art 96 (CPC). If wrongful arrest is made out, then the arrestor will be required to pay the damages to be liquidated, and the defendant’s costs of litigation. Two cases before the Tribunale di Genoa confirm this: Fast Ferries v Giuseppe Meocci (The Briso II) (27 December 1989) [1990] Dir Mar 406, and Ferrari & Gugenheim v Avigdor & Co (The Bracha Fold) (14 June 1955) [1957] Dir Mar 209. In The Briso II the Court held (at 411) that a wrongful arrest had occurred because the arrestor “requested the arrest without being entitled to it and [sought] a claim considerably higher than the amount owing to them”.
Beneficial ownership
As with most civil law jurisdictions, the concept of beneficial ownership does not exist in Italian law.
3. Conclusion
Although the particularities of arrest procedures differ somewhat across jurisdictions, the ways in which an in rem claim is executed is, in broad terms, similar the world over. Common elements in the arrest procedure are: the existence of strict procedural rules concerning the making of an application; the provision of certain supporting information and security when making an application; service of arrest warrants either by attaching the documents to the ship or handing them to the master; and release from arrest upon provision of security or upon judicial sale.
However, such uniformity does not exist across all jurisdictions for the concept of “beneficial ownership”. On this point, there is divergence between the common and civil law approaches. Given that civil law jurisdictions do not employ the concept of a beneficial interest, which derives from the law of trusts as it evolved in the United Kingdom, other ways must be discovered for those jurisdictions to hold liable a party other than the strict registered or legal owner. In France, for example, the doctrine of communaute d'interest has acquired significance as a mode for overcoming the “fictitiousness” of corporate group structures. As the Cour de Cassation held in Brave Mother Shipping Ltd v Maritime Transports Overseas GmbH, The “Brave Mother” [1991] DMF 315, a plaintiff may be able to bring a claim against a person or company other than the registered owner of the ship if that person or company is connected to the registered owner through the same family, that is, through a “community of interests” in the ship. An exceptional jurisdiction is that of South Africa. The Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 1983 (S.A.) prefers to define the issue in terms of “control” – ownership of a ship can be established by reference to the power of a person to “determine its direction and fate” in either a de jure or de facto sense: Belfry Marine Limited v Palm Base Maritime SDN BHD, The Heavy Metal” 1999 (3) SA 1083.
However, despite some dissimilarities and divergences, many jurisdictions will seek to “lift the corporate veil” where it is apparent that a particular corporate structure is designed by sham or by fraud to avoid liability: see Berlingeri, Arrest of Ships (4th ed., 2006) 163-182. Countries other than those discussed above which have demonstrated a willingness to pierce the corporate veil – although it should always be remembered that the criteria on which such a “piercing” will occur differ in quality and quantity in each jurisdiction – include Belgium (King navigation Ltd v Bulknedlloyd Holding B.V., The “Alpha Sun” (1 February 1994, Antwerp Cour d’Appel), Greece (Areios Pagos [1991] Maritime Law Review 15), the Netherlands (The Queen Evi [1994] Dir Mar 433), Nigeria (see Companies and Allied Matters Act 1990), Norway, Spain (judgment of 2 April 1990 [1990] 4 la Ley 611), Sweden, and the United States (Itel Containers Int’l v Atlanttrafik Export Services 909 F 2d 698 (1990)). Exceptions to this rule, however, include Croatia, Denmark, Haiti and Slovenia, which all have refrained from (as yet) piercing the corporate veil in order to investigate “true” ownership.
ANNEX I
Selected Resources on Arrest Procedures and Beneficial Ownership in Overseas Jurisdictions
United Kingdom
TETLEY, William, “Arrest, Attachment and Related Maritime Law Procedures” (1999) 73 Tulane Law Review 1895
TETLEY, William, Maritime Liens and Claims (2nd ed., 1998)
HILL, C. et al., Arrest of Ships (1985)
JACKSON, D.C., Enforcement of Maritime Claims, (3rd ed., 2000)
BERLINGIERI, Francesco, Arrest of Ships: A Commentary on the 1952 and 1999 Arrest Convention (4th ed., 2006)
SMITH, Paul (ed.), Ship Arrest Handbook (1997)
Canada
TETLEY, William, “Arrest, Attachment and Related Maritime Law Procedures” (1999) 73 Tulane Law Review 1895
TETLEY, William, Maritime Liens and Claims (2nd ed., 1998)
SOUTHCOTT, Richard and WALSH, Kimberly, “Canadian maritime law Update: 2005”, (2006) 37(3) Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 331
GOLD, Edgar, CHIRCOP, Aldo and KINDRED, Hugh, Maritime Law (2003)
Australiaand New Zealand
SMITH, Paul (ed.), Ship Arrest Handbook (1997)
Italy
BERLINGIERI, Francesco, Arrest of Ships: A Commentary on the 1952 and 1999 Arrest Convention (4th ed., 2006)
TETLEY, William, Maritime Liens and Claims (2nd ed., 1998)
SMITH, Paul (ed.), Ship Arrest Handbook (1997)
Generally
BERLINGIERI, Francesco, Arrest of Ships: A Commentary on the 1952 and 1999 Arrest Convention (4th ed., 2006)
