header-logo header-logo

21 October 2010
Issue: 7438 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Conflict of laws

Angara Maritime Ltd v Oceanconnect UK Ltd and another [2010] EWCA Civ 1050, [2010] All ER (D) 110 (Oct)

Under English conflict of law rules, recognition of a right to enforce a maritime lien was a matter to be determined according to the law of the forum. There was no maritime lien of necessity under English law and the categories of maritime lien capable of recognition under English law could only be extended by statute. The mere fact that statute conferred a jurisdiction did not mean that under English law the claim in question assumed the nature of a maritime lien. Whilst in the English courts a supplier of bunkers to a vessel would be entitled to proceed by way of an action in rem, provided that the bunkers constituted necessaries, the supplier would not enjoy a maritime lien as a matter of English law
 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll