12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D. 51 (2)
Request for Disposal
- On behalf of the ship, the owner of the ship's company appeared Arctic Shipping which purchased it from its previous owners after the date of supply of the fuels that are the subject of the claim addendum and sought to dismiss the claim supplement out of hand.
- In the application, it was claimed that the facts relating to the supply of fuel were not known to the shipowner. According to the ship, the ship was transferred to its owner on June 5, 2025, with a quantity of fuel on board that indicates that the ship was refueled in Russia shortly before the purchase. It was claimed that the current owner of the ship was not responsible for paying for the fuels supplied in the past prior to the purchase.
- In the motion for dismissal, it was also claimed that according to the sale agreement, the plaintiff should have resorted to arbitration, and that there is no explanation as to why she waited for the ship to arrive at Israeli ports, and why she did not take action even before the transfer of the rights in the ship to the current owner of the ship.
- The application also argues that according to the sale agreement and according to the rules of private international law, Danish law applies to the agreement for the sale of fuels. Therefore, it is argued, the question of the existence of a maritime lien on the ship must be examined, according to Danish law. The ship's owner attached to her request an opinion of the"D. Victor Borosovich from Russia, who claims to be familiar with Danish law. In his opinion, he noted that Danish law does not recognize maritime lien on ships to ensure the supply of fuel. It was argued that in the absence of a maritime lien, according to "The Law of the Matter", which is the Danish law, the plaintiff does not have a cause of action in Israel against the ship and its owners, and therefore the additional claim should be dismissed out of hand.
- It was further argued alternatively that according to Shipping (Vessels) Law, 560"H 1960, Article 48(4) A maritime lien expires within one year from the date of its creation, i.e., from the date of the supply of fuels. It was argued that from the date of delivery until the date of filing the supplement of the claim, more than a year had passed, and therefore even if it is determined that a maritime lien has been created, it expires at the end of a year. This, too, is enough to lead to the dismissal of the additional claim out of hand.
- The plaintiff filed a response to the motion for dismissal and emphasized that Israeli law, like private international law, recognizes a maritime lien to secure payment for the supply of essential necessities to the ship. Therefore, it is argued, With the supply of fuels, a maritime lien was created to ensure the payment. The lien goes with the ship wherever it goes, regardless of the changes in ownership. It was further argued that the sale agreement also explicitly stipulated that the maritime lien created with the supply of fuel would be subject to American law and not Danish law (clause 20.1 of the agreement). It was also determined, it was argued, that the plaintiff would have the right to act to realize the maritime lien in any jurisdiction, at its sole discretion (section 20.6).
00Copied from Nevo17. The plaintiff also argued that Danish law does not exclude proceedings for the realization of a lien and the seizure of ships conducted in other courts. The plaintiff attached a lawyer's opinion Andres Amstrup Fournaise From Denmark. According to his opinion, Danish law recognizes the possibility of arresting ships due to maritime claims and recognizes the validity of liens that apply to the place of detention of the ship.