An owner of a ship that was arrested and released is entitled to compensation only if proves that there was a loss or excessive expenses due to the arrest

A fuel supplier requested that a ship be arrested at the Haifa Port by way of realizing a maritime lien on the ship following the supply of fuel four years earlier in Spain. The Court ordered the release of the ship after a hearing in which it was determined that it was not proven that the ship's lessee who ordered the fuel was authorized to charge the ship's owner and that the debt was old and it was not proven that collection procedures had been taken from the lessee. The owner of the ship filed a claim for damage caused to it.
The Court held that in order to receive compensation for a maritime arrest, the ship owner must prove that a loss of income that would have been expected had the ship departed at the scheduled time without delay; or, alternatively, increased expenses incurred due to the delay and which would not have been expended had it not been for the arrest. Expenses that would have been incurred by the shipowner also in normal operation of the ship and without the arrest, are not damage caused by the arrests. In this case, unloading the ship ended only on the eve of the ship's release from the arrest. Therefore, it was not proven that the delay caused by the arrest warrant caused the ship to lose any income due to increased expenses or that its operations were damaged. However, the Court ordered the fuel supplier to pay the legal fees paid by the ship for the defense against the detention order.