MV Seaspan Grouse: Seaspan Holdco 1 Limited v MS Mare Traveller Schiffahrts GmbH & Co KG

The respondents, German ship-owning companies, had in personam claims for unpaid charter hire against Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd. After Hanjin entered rehabilitation proceedings, the respondents issued protective summonses in rem and warrants of arrest in September 2016 against various associated ships, including the vessel then known as Hanjin Gdynia. At that time the vessel was owned through a one-ship company ultimately controlled by Hanjin. In December 2016, before any arrest, the mortgagee sold the vessel bona fide to Seaspan Holdco 1 Limited, which became registered owner without knowledge of the protective writs. The vessel, renamed MV Seaspan Grouse, was arrested in Durban in August 2017 pursuant to the earlier-issued writs. Seaspan applied to set aside the arrest, contending that at the time the action commenced the vessel was no longer owned by a person personally liable or connected as required under s 3(7) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983 (AJRA). The High Court dismissed the application, and Seaspan appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The High Court’s order was set aside. The arrests of the MV Seaspan Grouse were declared unlawful and set aside, and the Registrar was directed to release the cash security to Seaspan.

This judgment authoritatively clarifies when an admiralty action commences under the AJRA, rejecting the importation of English law concepts of protective writs into South African law. It provides certainty to purchasers of vessels and limits the scope of associated ship arrests, reinforcing property rights and statutory interpretation principles in South African admiralty jurisprudence.