0
- Finally, it was argued that in the agreement for the purchase of the ship, the purchaser, as the owner of the current ship, confirmed that she was purchasing the ship, was aware of the existence of debts, and that she had assumed all the risks arising from the ship's previous activity. Therefore, it is argued, the shipowner is also liable for debts that were created prior to the purchase.
- The plaintiff claims that the maritime lien has not expired. It was argued that during the entire relevant period, from the date of delivery and the date on which the ship was obliged to pay, the ship did not enter the ports of Israel, and therefore the expiration period did not expire and the charge did not become obsolete.
Finally It was argued that according to Halakha, a claim should not be dismissed in limine where there is a possibility, even if slight, that the plaintiff will win his claim. Therefore, it was argued, the proceeding should be allowed to be conducted on its own merits.
- On February 1, 2026, a hearing was held on the request for dismissal. At the hearing, the parties reiterated their arguments. During the hearing, it was suggested to the shipowner's counsel to consider waiving the request for disposal and to reserve his arguments for hearing the claim on its merits. Since the ship's owner did not accept the offer, she submitted a written plea.
- In completing the argument, the ship's owner reiterated her arguments and also referred to the plaintiff's response. Among other things, she argued that there should be no division between the law that applies to the contract of sale, which is the Danish law, and the law that applies to the collateral rights, including the creation of the maritime lien. Therefore, she argued that the shipowner's argument that the maritime lien and its validity would be subject to American law should not be accepted.
It was further argued that the right given to the plaintiff in clause 20.6 of the contract to act to detain the ship in any port is a collateral right that is subject to the existence of a maritime lien that is recognized in the law of the case, which is the Danish law.
- The ship's owner is of the opinion that the opinion of the expert whose opinion was attached by the plaintiff should not be accepted. Among other things, it was claimed that the expert referred to the Brussels Convention, but that Israel and Denmark are not signatories to the Convention.
The ship's owner also attached an opinion by an expert in American law, Prof. Victor Bloch of Russia, who noted that American law does not recognize maritime lien in the circumstances of the current case and taking into account the expiration period.