In order to strengthen the collateral given to the ship's creditors, the owners of the special claim rights were also granted the rights to sue the ship itself in a Heftza lawsuit without the need to pursue and locate its owner. The nature of maritime bondage is that it goes with the ship wherever it goes.. The maritime enslavement has a number of special features, as summarized by President Shamgar in other municipal requests 352/87 The above:
(a) The lien lies on the property itself and it "moves" with it. TRAVELLING") "WITH THE PROPERTY; SEE (1980 - THOMAS, MARITIME LIENS (LONDON 12 P. This is a direct connection to the asset, the practical meaning of which is, as stated, that the creditor is entitled to repay his debt from within the asset. The creditor's claim is an IN REM claim (see THOMAS at p. 4).
(b) The maritime lien passes with the change of the ship's owner. The significance of this trait is that it also binds third parties and not only the immediate parties to the relationship that created the right. A practical aspect of this trait is expressed, for example, in the right of traceability. This right means that the owner of the proprietary right is entitled to follow the property in its various incarnations. Alternatively, owners of the property will not harm the owner of the property right. For our purposes, with the changes arising from the matter, the sale of the ship to new owners will not affect the maritime lien; He will continue to lie on the ship and bind the new owners, even if they did not know of the existence of a lien.
In order to provide the possibility of exercising these special rights, the legislature also recognized the remedy of the detention of the ship. The detention of a ship is intended to allow its creditors to repay the ship itself. Once the ship has been stopped, the court has jurisdiction to hear the claim of the object against the ship, and if it is accepted, the court may order the sale of the ship and the repayment of the debt from the sale fees.
- The Maritime Court mainly deals with Hefetza claims filed by various creditors against ships in Israeli waters. The object's claims are filed in order to enable the plaintiff to realize a daily lien that he claims lies on the ship. The maritime lien recognized under the laws of the Admiralty (The Admiralty Court Act 1840; The Admiralty Court Act 1861), and according to Shipping (Vessels) Law, 5720-1960 (hereinafter: the Shipping Law) constitutes a proprietary security granted by law or agreement to a creditor whom the legislature wishes to visit. The maritime lien is intended to secure the payment due to the creditor and gives the creditor the possibility of being repaid from the asset, if he does not receive payment (see Civil Appeal 352/87 Griffin Corporation v.. Koor Trade Ltd.IsrSC 44(3) 45 (1990); in paragraph 13 of the judgment of Justice Shamgar and paragraph 6 of the judgment of Justice Netanyahu). The creation of a maritime lien is contingent on the existence of a debt owed to the creditor, the shipowner, the charterer of the ship or a person who is authorized, by law, to obligate it. In the absence of such a debt, the creditor will not have a right to exercise a maritime lien on the ship.
- In many decisions, I reiterated that although from a procedural point of view a claim is directed to the realization of a maritime lien against the property, i.e., the ship, this is not enough, and I noted that "[...] In order to succeed in his lawsuit, the plaintiff must point to a recognized cause of action against the ship's owners, crew or captain [...] It can be said that Hefza's claim is a claim against the body of the vessel that is based on the responsibility of the owner of the vessel or his crew." (Heftza Claim 42908-03-11 Jupiter Shipping and Trading Ltd v. The Ship Tara Kaptanoglu (30.3.2011); Heftza Claim 53/08, 54 Dayan N. The Ship STS Pogoria (20.8.2009); Heftza Claim 18024-09-15 Dynamic Shipping Services (Dashes) Ltd. v.. The Ship Sea Way (17.4.2016); Heftza Claim 36145-0511 Barak Shaked Marketing (2002) Ltd. v. The Ship Mirage I (8.9.2011); Heftza Claim 12527-12-11 Kyma Ship Management Inc. v. The Ship Rio (30/4/2014)).
- The Maritime Law establishes a list of recognized grounds for the realization of a maritime lien and the section 41 It also indicates the order of precedence between the various grounds. At the bottom of the list are the claims of the various suppliers, which according to English law only establish a maritime claim against the ship. This is what section instructs 41(8) To the law:
Payments claimed for or due to supplies or services provided to the vessel pursuant to agreements or transactions made by the captain of the vessel, within the framework of the powers granted to him by law, to the extent that such supplies and services were necessary for the maintenance of the vessel or for the continuation of its voyage - whether the payment is claimed by the captain or by the providers of supplies and services.
- The dispute between the parties deals with the question of what is the law that applies to the creation of the lien to secure the debt in respect of the supply of fuel, whether it is the law of the contract, or the law of the forum or some other law. The parties also disagree on the question of what the Danish law states, insofar as it applies to the creation of the lien. Other Municipality Requests 352/87 Here"The justices disagreed on the question of which law applies to the creation of a maritime lien to secure a debt to the creditor; Is it "The Law of the Matter" Or perhaps the law of the forum. The majority opinion was that the relevant law is "Discussion of the matter" However, in the absence of evidence on the law of the matter, it is possible to apply the "The Presumption of Equality of Laws". The minority opinion was that the creation and validity of the lien would be examined in accordance with the law of the forum.
- On the question of what is the law that applies to the creation of the lien in the matter before us, there is no need to decide, since the determination of which law applies depends not only on the rules of international law, but also on the agreements between the parties. We saw that in clause 20.1 of the Supply Agreement, a separation was made between the law applicable to the contract and the law applicable to the collateral, and it was agreed that the law applicable to the collateral would be American law. The shipowner was not a party to the agreement, and therefore it is clear that its interpretation of these provisions may be controversial. In order to determine the question of what the parties' intentions would have been with regard to the law that would apply to the creation of a lien on collateral for the payment of the debt, it will be necessary to hear the factual versions of the parties to the engagement.
I will note that the language of clause 20.1 does not ostensibly support the position of the shipowner. Section 20.1 states that: "The General Maritime Law of the United States of America shell always apply with Respect to the existence of the Sellers Maritime lien [...]", in other words, American law will apply to the question of the creation of the maritime lien to secure the debt for the supply of fuel.
- Even if we assume that Danish law applies to the creation of the lien, this is not enough to dismiss the claim out of hand. As is well known, a foreign law is like a fact that must be proven by evidence. Usually the foreign law will be proven by the opinion of an expert in this lawR (See Civil Appeal 406/62 Zilkha N. DalumiIsrSC 17 904, 909 (1963); High Court of Justice 4562/94 Abu Daqqa N. The Military Court in LodIsrSC 48(4) 742 (1994); Civil Appeal Authority 3924/01 Hess Form Licht Company N. Clalit Electrical Engineering Ltd. (10.02.2002); Civil Appeal Authority 8887/04 Kushnitzky N. Organization for the Implementation of the Convention on Social Security (Israel, West Germany) (14.06.2005); Ltd. 861/17 Anonymous v. Anonymous (March 30, 2017); Civil Appeal 6726/05 Hydrola Ltd. v. Assessor Civil Case 1paragraph 14(3) (June 5, 2008); M Shava "The nature and manner of proving the Foreign Law in Anglo-American Law and Israeli Law" (Iyunei Mishpat 3 (1974) 725, 736).
- Each of the parties submitted an opinion on the matter of Danish law. The provisions of the Danish law regarding maritime lien, in the circumstances of the present case, when it is sought to enforce a maritime lien in a foreign forum, are controversial. Therefore, since Danish law requires proof like any other fact, it is clear that the arguments regarding the provisions of Danish law, as long as there is no agreement on them, are not sufficient to dismiss the claim in limine.
Statute of limitations
- Article 48 30Shipping (Vessels) Law, 560"K - 1960 stipulates that a maritime lien will expire within a year and specifies the date of commencement. Article 48(4) Determines that in a lien arising from an agreement or transaction as stated in paragraph (8) of section 41 - The period will be numbered "From the date of creation of the debt secured by lien". In Sifa Article 48 It was held that [...] If the vessel is found at the beginning of the expiration period outside of Israel, its commencement will be postponed, until it arrives at an Israeli port, provided that the lien expires no later than three years from the date on which the expiration period would have begun if the vessel had been in Israel.
- The plaintiff claims that the expiration period begins from the date of the breach of the obligation to pay. This date is in August 2024, as the parties were in talks to settle the debt. It further claimed that from the date of the beginning of the expiration period until the arrival of the ship on its current voyage, it did not reach the ports of Israel, and therefore the beginning of the expiration period was postponed.
- These arguments are also factual claims that require clarification. The date of the supply of fuel to the ship does not indicate the date of the start of the expiration period, since it begins on the date "Debt Formation", i.e., on the date on which the previous ship or ship owner breached the obligation to pay. Insofar as there was an agreement in the negotiations between the parties to postpone the date of payment, this may lead to a postponement of the date of the debt's creation. These are claims that require proof of evidence (see Heftza Claim 6731-02-17 , UNITRADE BUNKERING SERVICES LTD N. The Ship "HURIYE ANA", paragraph 50 (23/5/2020)).
- I will further note that the question of the date of expiration of the lien may also be contingent on the law that applies to the validity of the lien, and to the extent that the plaintiff's argument is accepted, this law is the American law. None of the parties claimed regarding the expiration period of the lien under American law, and this issue also requires clarification. It should be recalled that even this law is the law relevant to the validity of the lien, and in the absence of evidence of its contents, it is possible to apply the presumption of equality of laws and assume that the period of expiration is identical to that determined in Israeli law.
Conclusion
- In view of all of the above, I do not believe that the claim should be dismissed in limine, in the sense that the shipowner will be able to raise its arguments regarding the relevant law and the issue of the expiration of the lien within the scope of the main proceeding. In order to advance the proceeding, the plaintiff will submit affidavits of testimony by September 10, 2026, and the shipowner will submit an affidavit by November 1, 2026.
- Taking into account the expected changes in my work schedule, the case will be transferred to the Honorable Judge A. Doron, who will set dates for the continuation of the hearing.
Granted today, July 29, 2026, in the absence of the parties.