THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT
Case no: 82/2014
REPORTABLE
In the matter between:
THE OWNERS OF THE MV SILVER STAR
Appellant
and
HILANE LIMITED

Respondent
Neutral citation: MV Silver Star: Owners of MV Silver Star v Hilane
Ltd (82/2014)[2014] ZASCA 194 (28 November
2014)
Coram:
PONNAN, WALLIS, PILLAY and ZONDI JJA and
GORVEN AJA
Heard:
18 NOVEMBER 2014
Delivered: 28 NOVEMBER 2014
Summary: Associated ship arrest – claim on indemnities and a foreign
arbitration award – whether an associated ship arrest permissible – proof
of association.

ORDER

On appeal from: Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth (Eksteen J
sitting as court of first instance):
The appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs of two
counsel, where two counsel were employed.

JUDGMENT

Wallis JA (Ponnan, Pillay and Zondi JJA and Gorven AJA
concurring)
[1] The respondent, Hilane Ltd (Hilane) was the owner of the Sheng
Mu. On 6 July 2011 it concluded a voyage charterparty on the Gencon
form with Phiniqia International Shipping LLC (Phiniqia), for the
carriage of a cargo of coking coal from Bandar Abbas, Iran to Vizag,
India. Arising from that charterparty it has claims against Phiniqia. It has
pursued those claims by way of the arrest on 12 August 2013 in Port
Elizabeth of the Silver Star as an associated ship in relation to the Sheng
Mu, in terms of s 3(6), read with s 3(7), of the Admiralty Jurisdiction
Regulation Act 105 of 1983 (the Act). An application by the registered
owners of the Silver Star, a Hong Kong company called Action Partner
Limited (Action Partner), for the release of the vessel was dismissed by
Eksteen J in the Eastern Cape Local Division, Port Elizabeth. Leave to
appeal was refused by the high court but granted on petition by this
Court.

[2] Action Partner raises two legal issues on the basis of which it
contends that an associated ship arrest is impermissible in respect of the
claims advanced by Hilane. In addition it contends that Hilane has failed
on the facts to establish the association on the necessary balance of
probabilities.1  This judgment deals with the two legal issues and that of
my brother Ponnan JA, with which I agree, with the question of
association on the facts.

[3] The charterparty concluded between Hilane and Phiniqia provided
that it was to be governed by and construed in accordance with English
law. It contained the conventional clause providing for the master to sign
bills of lading as presented without prejudice to the terms of the
charterparty and, in certain circumstances, for the owner‘s agents to sign
bills of lading on behalf of owners. These obligations were varied to
some degree by the provisions of clauses 38 and 46 of the rider clauses
which provided as follows:
‗CLAUSE 38
OWNERS AGREE FOR CHARTERERS TO ISSUE 2ND SET OF BILLS OF
LADING IN DUBAI AGAINST CHRS SIMPLE L.O.I. & CHARTERERS
UNDERTAKE TO SURRENDER THE FIRST SET OF ORIGINAL BILLS OF
LADING ISSUED AT LOADPORT TO OWNERS WITHIN 21 DAYS. IF
REQUIRED OWNERS AGREE TO ISSUE BS/L SHOWING LOADPORT
―MIDDLE EAST PORT‖ OR ―PERSIAN GULF PORT‖ OR ―RAS ALKHAIMAH‖
INSTEAD OF ACTUAL LOADPORT ―BANDAR ABBAS‖.
CLAUSE 46
CHARTERERS WILL ENDEAVOUR THEIR BEST TO ENSURE THAT
ORIGINAL BILLS OF LADING ARE MADE AVAILABLE AT DISPORT ON OR
BEFORE VESSEL'S ARRIVAL TO DISCHARGE. HOWEVER IF ORIGINAL
BILLS OF LADING ARE NOT AVAILABLE THEN OWNERS/MASTER AGREE

1 Bocimar NV v Kotor Overseas Shipping Ltd 1994 (2) SA 563 (A) at 581B-C.

TO
DISCHARGE/DELIVER
THE
CARGO
TO
RECEIVERS
AGAINST
CHARTERERS SIMPLE LETTER OF INDEMNITY IN OWNERS STANDARD
PANDI CLUB WORDING DULY SIGNED BY CHARTERERS ONLY.‘

[4] As was perhaps to be expected, it was the operation of these
clauses that gave rise to the disputes between Hilane and Phiniqia.
Tradeline LLC (Tradeline), a company associated with Phiniqia,
purchased the coking coal that was to be carried on the Sheng Mu from
Golden Waves FZC (Golden Waves). On 17 July 2011 a first set of bills
of lading was issued showing Golden Waves as the shipper, the loadport
as ‗Persian Gulf Port‘ and the notify parties as Tradeline and Fairway
Trading Company (Pty) Ltd of Chennai, India. The following day,
Tradeline, on behalf of Phiniqia, indicated that Phiniqia required a second
set of bills of lading to be issued in Dubai as agreed under rider clause 38.
These were to show the loadport as Ras Al Khaimah in the United Arab
Emirates. In addition they were now to identify Tradeline as the shipper
and the notify parties as Gupta Coal India Limited and IDBI Bank
Limited, both of Nagpur, India.

[5] In terms of clause 38 the second set of bills could only be issued
against a letter of indemnity (LOI) given to Hilane by Phiniqia.
Accordingly Phiniqia executed an LOI in favour of Hilane indemnifying
it in respect of any liability, loss, expenses or damage of whatsoever
nature that Hilane might sustain by reason of having issued two sets of
bills of lading in accordance with Phiniqia's request. The LOI also
provided that if the Sheng Mu or any other property belonging to Hilane
should be arrested or detained, or such an arrest or detention be
threatened, by reason of issuing two sets of bills of lading, Phiniqia
undertook to provide immediately on demand such bail or other security

as might be required to prevent such arrest or detention or to secure the
release of the vessel or such other property and to indemnify Hilane in
respect of any loss, damage or expenses, including but not limited to
interest and attorneys‘ fees caused by such arrest or detention ‗whether or
not the same may be justified‘.

[6] Once the second set of bills of lading had been issued and the LOI
furnished to Hilane‘s agents, Hilane asked for the cancellation and return
of the first set of bills of lading. This it was plainly entitled to do. On 21
July 2011 Tradeline, acting as Phiniqia‘s agents, advised that:
‗We shall in due course send you original first of bs/l and the original c/p duly
executed by courier to your office.‘
It did not fulfil this undertaking. This was the first source of problems
because Golden Waves remained in possession of the first bill.

[7] Shortly before the vessel was due to arrive at Vizag on 27 July
2011, Tradeline indicated to Hilane that the original bills of lading might
not be available upon arrival. In accordance with rider clause 46 it
requested the owners to provide it with the format of a further LOI for the
discharge of the cargo in the absence of the bills of lading. That LOI was
furnished and executed on behalf of Phiniqia on 27 July 2011. Its terms
were similar to those of the earlier LOI, save that the indemnity was
against any liability, loss, damage or expense of whatsoever nature
sustained by reason of delivering the cargo in accordance with Phiniqia‘s
request without delivery up of the bills of lading. It contained a provision
that once the original bills of lading came into Phiniqia‘s possession it
would deliver them to Hilane, whereafter its liability under the LOI
would cease.

[8] Golden Waves remained in possession of the first bill of lading. On
25 August 2011 its agents wrote to Hilane stating that they were the
shipper of the cargo and asking for confirmation that it was still being
held to Golden Waves‘ order. According to Golden Waves it had not
been paid for the coal. Hilane in turn passed this message to Phiniqia, but
Golden Waves‘ claims were not resolved. On 8 November 2011 London
solicitors acting for Golden Waves sent Hilane a letter of demand for the
unpaid price of the coal in an amount slightly in excess of
AED 8 million.2 When there was no response to this demand Golden
Waves caused the Sheng Mu to be arrested on 5 January 2012 in Napier,
New Zealand. Hilane demanded that Phiniqia fulfil its obligations under
the two LOIs and reinforced their demand with an order of the High
Court in England, but Phiniqia did not respond. Eventually Hilane had to
procure a guarantee from its own bankers to secure the release of the
Sheng Mu from arrest.

[9] In consequence of these events Hilane contended that Phiniqia was
obliged to indemnify it against the claim by Golden Waves and for the
damages it said that it suffered in consequence of the arrest of the Sheng
Mu in New Zealand. It referred a dispute in this regard to arbitration in
London in accordance with the provisions of the charterparty and
obtained an award in its favour. The relevant terms of that award were as
follows:
‗I FIND AND HOLD that Owners [Hilane] are entitled to the relief claimed namely:-
(i)
An Indemnity in respect of Golden Waves‘ Arbitration Claim should Owners
be liable for the same together with an indemnity in respect of costs incurred by

2 AED is an abbreviation for Arab Emirate Dirham. The amount is approximately equivalent to
USD 3 million.

Owners (and for those which Owners may become liable to Golden Waves) in the
Golden Waves Arbitration Claim;
(ii)
The Arrest Losses;
(iii)
The Further Losses;
(iv)
Interest on any such losses, calculated at the rate of 5 per cent per annum
compounded with three monthly rests running from the dates such losses were
incurred until the date of payment by Charterers.
(v)
Costs; and
(vi)
Such further or other relief as may be necessary or appropriate.‘

[10]  Hilane now seeks to enforce its claims in an action in rem in South
Africa brought against the Silver Star as an associated ship in relation to
the Sheng Mu. In formulating its claim it assesses its liability to Golden
Waves in an amount of AED 8 279 253.48; the arrest losses as
USD 913 456.70; and its claims in respect of further losses and costs, in
various lesser sums. In total it claimed judgment for USD 3,8 million
together with interest and costs. We were informed from the bar that,
although a monetary value has been placed on the Golden Waves claim,
no arbitration award has yet been made in favour of Golden Waves
although it is anticipated that an award will be made shortly. Leaving
aside the merits of these claims, Action Partner contends that Hilane is
not entitled in law to invoke the associated ship arrest provisions in order
to pursue them against the Silver Star.

[11]  In order to appreciate the legal points raised by Action Partner it is
necessary to look at the statutory framework in relation to maritime
claims and associated ships. Section 1 of the Act defines an admiralty
action as meaning proceedings for the enforcement of a maritime claim.
The material portion for present purposes of the definition of maritime
claim in s 1 of the Act reads as follows:

‗―maritime claim‖ means any claim for, arising out of or relating to —
(h)
the carriage of goods in a ship, or any agreement for or relating to such
carriage;
(j)
any charterparty or the use, hire, employment or operation of a ship, whether
such claim arises out of any agreement or otherwise;
(aa)
any judgment or arbitration award relating to a maritime claim, whether given
or made in the Republic or elsewhere;
(ff)
any contribution, indemnity or damages with regard to or arising out of any
claim in respect of any matter mentioned above …‘

[12] The relevant provisions of s 3 of the Act governing the
commencement of actions in rem and the ability to pursue a maritime
claim by way of an action in rem against an associated ship are the
following:
‗(4)  Without prejudice to any other remedy that may be available to a claimant or to
the rules relating to the joinder of causes of action a maritime claim may be enforced
by an action in rem —
(a)
if the claimant has a maritime lien over the property to be arrested; or
(b)
if the owner of the property to be arrested would be liable to the claimant in an
action in personam in respect of the cause of action concerned.
(6)  An action in rem, other than an action in respect of a maritime claim referred to in
paragraph (d) of the definition of ―maritime claim‖, may be brought by the arrest of
an associated ship instead of the ship in respect of which the maritime claim arose.
(7) (a)  For the purposes of subsection (6) an associated ship means a ship, other than
the ship in respect of which the maritime claim arose—
(i)
owned, at the time when the action is commenced, by the person who was the
owner of the ship concerned at the time when the maritime claim arose; or
(ii)
owned, at the time when the action is commenced, by a person who controlled
the company which owned the ship concerned when the maritime claim arose; or;
(iii)
owned, at the time when the action is commenced, by a company which is
controlled by a person who owned the ship concerned, or controlled the company
which owned the ship concerned, when the maritime claim arose.
(b)  For the purposes of paragraph (a)—

(i)
ships shall be deemed to be owned by the same persons if the majority in
number of, or of voting rights in respect of, or the greater part, in value, of, the shares
in the ships are owned by the same persons;
(ii)
a person shall be deemed to control a company if he has power, directly or
indirectly, to control the company;
(iii)
a company includes any other juristic person and any body of persons,
irrespective of whether or not any interest therein consists of shares.
(c)  If at any time a ship was the subject of a charter-party the charterer or
subcharterer, as the case may be, shall for the purposes of subsection (6) and this
subsection be deemed to be the owner of the ship concerned in respect of any relevant
maritime claim for which the charterer or the subcharterer, and not the owner, is
alleged to be liable.‘

[13] The background to the introduction of the associated ship arrest
provisions was the international trend for ship owners to register all the
vessels in a particular fleet in separate companies each owning a single
vessel.3 This rendered the recovery of maritime debts more difficult.
Although the Arrest Convention of 19524 made provision for the arrest
not only of the particular ship in respect of which a maritime claim had
arisen, but also the arrest of another ship owned by the same owner as the
ship in respect of which the maritime claim had arisen, that was
ineffective when the vessels were owned by separate ‗one ship‘
companies. As the principal author of the Act put it to this court in the
Berg,5 in order to make liability for a maritime claim or the loss arising
from such a claim to fall where it belonged by virtue of common
ownership of ships or common control of ship-owning companies, the
associated ship provisions were devised and incorporated in the Act.

3 The trend is traced in MJD Wallis The Associated Ship and South African Admiralty Jurisdiction
(2010) at 41-43.
4 International Convention Relating to the Arrest of Sea-Going Ships concluded in Brussels on 10 May
1952.
5 Euromarine International of Mauren v The Ship Berg and Others 1986 (2) SA 700 (A) at 712A-B.

[14] An associated ship arrest can be sought in the following
circumstances. There must be a ship in respect of which a maritime claim
has arisen. This is referred to as the ship concerned. Then there must be
another ship – the associated ship – that satisfies the requirements of
s 3(7)(a) of the Act, in that it is either in the same ownership as the ship
concerned, or where both ships are owned by companies, as is ordinarily
the case, control of the company owning the ship concerned at the time
the claim arose must be the same as control of the company that owns the
associated ship at the time of its arrest.

[15] This was a perfectly satisfactory structure so long as the maritime
claim against the ship concerned was a claim that gave rise to a maritime
lien or was a claim that arose against the owner of that ship. However, in
many maritime situations, the claims arising in respect of a ship might not
fall into either category because they were claims that lay in personam
against the charterer of the vessel. For example, in many charterparties,
the charterer was responsible for providing bunkers to the vessel, but
when bunker suppliers remained unpaid they could not arrest the vessel
itself. Nor could they arrest as an associated ship a vessel owned by the
charterer, or a company controlled by the charterer, because there was no
commonality of ownership or control between the ship concerned and the
putative associated ship.

[16]  The problem was addressed by the deeming provision in s 3(7)(c)
of the Act. Under it the charterer or sub-charterer of a vessel who is
personally liable in respect of a maritime claim is deemed, for the
purposes of association alone, to be the owner of the chartered vessel. It
was suggested to us that this provision is extremely wide and might catch
within its net any person who had at any time been the charterer of the

ship concerned. But that is incorrect. For the purposes of determining
whether an association exists the question is who is the owner of the ship
concerned at the time the maritime claim arose. That is clear from the
language of the various sub-sections of s 3(7)(a). All that the deeming
provision does is to place a charterer or sub-charterer of a vessel who
incurs, but does not pay, a debt arising from its having been the charterer
of the vessel, in the same position as the owner of the vessel would be if
the owner incurred the same debt and did not pay it.

[17] It was submitted to us that this provision must be narrowly
construed in order not to fall foul of the constitutional guarantee against
arbitrary deprivation of property.6 However, no narrow reading of the
section was proffered. I am conscious of the obligation of courts when
construing a statute to do so in a way that promotes the spirit, purport and
objects of the Bill of Rights, but in the absence of any suggested
alternative reading of s 3(7)(c) of the Act that issue does not arise.
Counsel stressed that there was no challenge to the constitutionality of the
section. That being so effect must be given to the provisions of the
section and they are clear in deeming the charterer against which a
maritime claim arises in the course of the charter to be the owner of the
vessel. They do this in order to enable an unpaid creditor to pursue
recovery of the claim by way of an associated ship arrest if that is
possible.

[18] The deeming provision places the unpaid creditor in the same
situation vis-à-vis a defaulting charterer as it is in respect of a defaulting
owner. It follows that any constitutional attack on associated ship arrests

6 Section 25 of the Constitution.

in relation to charterers under s 25 of the Constitution must also be an
attack on associated ship arrests in relation to owners. In other words it
must be an attack on the entire institution of the associated ship.
Elsewhere, and in a different capacity, I have expressed the view that
such a challenge could be raised but should not succeed.7  As we are not
confronted in this case with a constitutional challenge to the institution of
the associated ship it is unnecessary for me to address the correctness of
those academic views, which, after proper argument on an appropriate
occasion, I may have to recant or modify.8

[19]   Turning then to the legal issues that were raised in the heads of
argument, the first was based on the proposition that the claims being
advanced by Hilane against the Silver Star were claims that arose from
the arbitration award it obtained against Phiniqia in London. As this was
an English award governed by English law, it was submitted that its
effect was to extinguish the underlying claims on which the award was
based and to replace those claims with a claim based on the award itself.
Building on that foundation Action Partner contended that the claim was
no longer one that related to the Sheng Mu and accordingly that there was
no longer a ‗ship concerned‘ the existence of which is the foundation for
an associated ship arrest, because the associated ship is arrested ‗instead
of the ship concerned‘.

[20] I accept for present purposes, because Hilane did not challenge the
proposition, that the starting point for determining whether a ship may be
arrested as an associated ship must be the existence of a maritime claim

7 The Associated Ship and South African Admiralty Jurisdiction at 268-281.
8 MSC Gina: Mediterranean Shipping Co SA v Cape Town Iron and Steel Works 2011 (2) SA 547
(KZD) para 19.

against or in respect of a particular ship. That appears to follow from the
requirement that the associated ship is arrested instead of the ship
concerned, and thereafter the action in rem is pursued against it instead of
the ship concerned.9  If the maritime claim did not give rise to a maritime
lien against a particular vessel, and an in personam claim did not arise ‗in
respect of‘ a particular ship, there could be no action in rem against a
particular ship because the requirements of s 3(5) of the Act could not be
satisfied. In that event there would be no ship concerned and there could
be no arrest of an associated ship.

[21] It is the next leg of the argument that is problematic. It depends
upon the proposition that, because an English arbitration award
extinguishes the underlying claim on which the award was based, it is not
made in respect of a particular ship and therefore there can be no ship
concerned for the purposes of an associated ship arrest. In the first place it
is by no means clear to me that an arbitration award of the nature of the
present award would in English law be regarded as extinguishing the
claim or claims on which the award was based. Both the cases and the
leading textbooks express the position rather more cautiously than that. In
Russell on Arbitration,10 it is said that:
‗[T]he award itself creates new rights between the parties in most cases superseding
their previous rights in relation to the matters referred.‘
Similarly in giving the judgment of the Board in F. J. Bloemen Pty Ltd v
Council of the City of Gold Coast,11 Lord Pearson said that the award of
an arbitrator cannot be viewed in isolation from the submission under
which it was made and referred to the distinction between ‗an award

9 The topic is discussed in The Associated Ship and South African Admiralty Jurisdiction at 153-155.
10 D Sutton and J Gill, Russell on Arbitration (22 ed, 2003) para 6-190.
11 F. J. Bloemen Pty Ltd v Council of the City of Gold Coast 1973 AC 115 at 126.

which merely establishes and measures a liability under a contract and so
does not create a fresh cause of action and an award of damages which
supersedes the liability under the contract and creates a fresh cause of
action‘.

[22]  Those statements do not suggest that the English law governing
the effect of an arbitration award inevitably has the absolute
consequences for which Action Partner argued. Indeed they are, to the
ears of a South African lawyer, redolent of the statements in this Court
concerning these matters. Thus in the Yu Long Shan,12 Marais JA
described a claim based on an arbitration award as an entirely derivative
cause of action. And in Swadif (Pty) Ltd v Dyke NO13 this Court approved
the following statement by Fannin J14 of the status of an arbitration
award:
‗It does seem to me to be a somewhat artificial view of the position to regard a
judgment as, in all circumstances, having the effect of a novation. In some cases, of
course, it does have precisely that effect, where, for example, a plaintiff obtains a
judgment for cancellation of a contract and for damages. Thus, in this case, had the
judgment been one declaring the contract between the parties to have been at an end,
with an order that the defendant return the vehicle to the plaintiff and pay the
defendant a sum of money, it could quite realistically be said that the judgment
wholly replaced and thus novated the contractual rights and liabilities of the parties
inter se. But in a case like the present, where the only purpose of the judgment is to
enable the plaintiff to enforce certain rights, by means of execution if need be, without
in any way affecting other rights arising out of the contract, it seems more realistic to
regard the judgment not as novating the former, but as strengthening or reinforcing
them. The right of action will have been replaced by a right to execute, but the
enforceable right remains the same.‘

12 MV Yu Long Shan: Drybulk SA v MV Yu Long Shan 1998 (1) SA 646 (SCA) at 653F-H.
13 Swadif (Pty) Ltd v Dyke NO 1978 (1) SA 928 (A) at 942C-E.
14 In Trust Bank of Africa Ltd v Dhooma 1970 (3) SA 304 (N) at 310A-C.

[23] Even if the submission by Action Partner were correct I do not
think that it would assist it. In F. J. Bloemen Pty Ltd v Council of the City
of Gold Coast the Privy Council was faced with a very similar submission
that, because an arbitration award had been made in respect of the
contractor‘s claims, it could not be said that the amounts due under the
award were amounts payable in terms of the contract. This was for the
purposes of a clause in the contract that provided for interest to be paid on
all money payable to the contractor thereunder. The Board rejected this
submission on the basis that the award could not be severed from the
underlying submission to arbitration embodied in the contract, and hence
the amounts payable under the award could fairly be said to be amounts
payable under the contract. It seems to me similarly that where an
arbitration award is made in terms of an arbitration clause in a
charterparty relating to a particular ship, the award cannot be severed
from its source and it remains one in respect of that particular ship.

[24]  When regard is had to the relevant definitions of maritime claim
that are applicable in this case, it merely reinforces that view. Any
judgment or arbitration award ‗relating to a maritime claim‘ is itself a
maritime claim. In this case the maritime claims that underlie the award
arise from a charterparty dispute and any claim for, arising out of or
relating to a charterparty is a maritime claim.15 The words ‗for, arising
out of or relating to‘ predicate a relationship between the claim and the
maritime topic sufficiently intimate to impart to the claim a maritime
character of a sort rendering it appropriate for the claim to be adjudicated
in accordance with maritime law.16 An arbitration award on such a claim

15 They may also be claims arising in respect of the carriage of goods in a ship or an agreement for such
carriage.
16 Peros v Rose 1990 (1) SA 420 (N) at 424F-426A.

itself has a sufficient maritime character to render it a maritime claim.
Where the underlying maritime claim lies against or in respect of a ship it
does not seem an undue use of language to say that the arbitration award
in respect of that claim is likewise a claim in respect of the same ship.

[25] Some very considerable oddities arise if this is not the case. Take
the case of a claim by a charterer for damages arising from a breach of a
performance warranty under a charterparty. The claim is a maritime claim
against the owner of the vessel. It clearly arises in respect of the chartered
vessel. The claim is therefore one that could be pursued by way of an
action in rem against that vessel. The effect of Action Partner‘s
contention is that, if the charterparty contains an arbitration clause and the
dispute is referred to arbitration, the award could not be enforced by an
action in rem against the vessel, because it could not be said to be a claim
in respect of the vessel. So the result of the charterer complying with its
contractual obligations and proceeding to arbitrate would be to forfeit the
right to proceed in rem against the vessel. That would be a strange result
when the Act says specifically that the award itself is a maritime claim. It
has that status even if it is a South African award and enforceable in
terms of the Arbitration Act 42 of 1965.

[26] The consequence of this argument being upheld would be that no
claim on a judgment or arbitration award could be pursued by an action in
rem. That would be a very far-reaching result, as it would deprive
claimants with a maritime claim arising in respect of a vessel and capable
of being pursued by an action in rem of that advantage, after they had
fortified their claim with a judgment or arbitration award. It could lead to
claimants contending in terms of s 7(1) of the Act that they should not be

compelled to pursue arbitration, as they would thereby be deprived of a
legitimate juridical advantage. That would be undesirable.

[27] Action Partner relied on two English cases, The Beldis17 and The
“Bumbesti”18 in support of its contentions. Both cases dealt with
arbitration awards made under charterparties. In The Beldis the question
was whether a claim under an award was a claim ‗arising out of any
agreement made in relation to the use or hire of any ship‘ so as to give the
County Court admiralty jurisdiction to deal with it. The Court of Appeal
held that it was not, because the action was one upon the award itself and
not the charterparty. The court pointed out that all that had to be proved
by the claimant was that matters had been submitted to an arbitrator and
that an award had been made.19 The claim was one on the award not the
charterparty. In arriving at this conclusion the court was influenced by the
history of the extension of admiralty jurisdiction in England, commencing
with the Admiralty Courts Acts of 1840 and 1861, and held that the
definition of the extended claims was undertaken in ‗precise, plain and
carefully guarded terms‘.20

[28] The decision in The “Bumbesti” took the matter no further. Once
again the contention was that the court had jurisdiction to hear a claim
based on an arbitration award under a charterparty because it was a ‗claim
arising out of any agreement relating to the carriage of goods in a ship or
to the use or hire of a ship‘. The contention was rejected both as a matter
of construction, having regard to the history of this expression in earlier

17 The Beldis [1936] P 51.
18 The “Bumbesti” [1999] 2 Lloyd‘s Rep 481 [Q.B. (Adm. Ct.)].
19 C/f MV Ivory Tirupati: MV Ivory Tirupati and Another v Badan Urusan Logistik (aka Bulog) 2003
(3) SA 104 (SCA) para 32.
20 Per Scott LJ at 82.

legislation, and because the judge held himself bound by the decision in
The Beldis.

[29] The English cases are by no means unanimous in this regard.
Sheen J, the admiralty judge, expressed a contrary view in The St Anna.21
Relying on dicta in both the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords he
held that there was no reason not to give the words in the statute their
ordinary meaning or to constrain them in the light of the history of similar
expressions in earlier statutes. He held that an action on an arbitration
award is an action to enforce the contract contained in the contract
embodying the submission to arbitration, in that case the charterparty, and
therefore the claim was one arising out of an agreement for the use and
hire of a ship. He added that he was pleased to reach that result because it
enabled the court to do justice ‗in a way which would be denied to it if
creditors could not bring proceedings in rem merely because they
faithfully honoured their agreement to submit to arbitration a dispute
which is clearly within the Admiralty jurisdiction‘.22 That sentiment
echoes my own.

[30] For two reasons it is unnecessary for me to reconcile this difference
of opinion. The first is that the English statutes defining the ambit of
admiralty jurisdiction under consideration in those cases, as is still the
position in terms of the Senior Courts Act 1981,23 contained no provision
corresponding to the express inclusion, as maritime claims under the Act,
of claims on judgments and arbitration awards relating to maritime

21 The St Anna [1983] 2 All ER 691 (QBD).
22 At 696h.
23 The relevant provisions appear in Appendix 2 to Nigel Meeson and John A Kimbell Admiralty
Jurisdiction and Practice (4 ed, 2011) at 527-529.

claims. Those cases were therefore dealing with a different issue. The
second is that it is plain that the inclusion of this section in the Act was
done deliberately in order to overcome the decision in The Beldis.24 In
those circumstances the English cases that Action Partner relied on are
unhelpful, even if its contentions as to their effect are correct.

[31]   At the end of the day the issue is not one as to the effect in
English law of an arbitral award, but one as to the proper construction of
the relevant provisions of the Act. That is a question to be determined by
a conventional process of statutory interpretation in terms of South
African law. Foreign law will only enter into the picture if the court needs
to determine the nature of a particular claim in order to decide whether it
comes within the scope of one of the defined maritime claims. Nor can
there be resort to the provisions of s 6 of the Act, because those
provisions only apply to fix the law applicable in the adjudication of
claims (‗in the exercise of its admiralty jurisdiction‘), after the prior
question whether the court has jurisdiction has been resolved. The
statutory rules governing the bringing of an action to enforce a maritime
claim embody the jurisdictional aspect of the enforcement of maritime
claims.25

[32] The first issue thus resolves itself into the question whether, on a
proper interpretation of the Act, a claim in respect of an arbitration award
relating to a maritime claim is a claim in respect of the ship in respect of
which the original maritime claim lay. Any practical person engaged in
the maritime world would answer ‗of course it is‘ to that question. Their

24 D J Shaw QC Admiralty Jurisdiction and Practice in South Africa (1987) at 23-24.
25 D C Jackson Enforcement of Maritime Claims (4 ed, 2005) at 1.

answer would not change if they were told that under the arbitral law the
award extinguished the original claim. That is in my view clearly the
correct position and it disposes of Action Partner‘s first argument.
Hilane‘s maritime claims under the charterparty arose in respect of the
Sheng Mu and Phiniqia, which was liable in respect of those claims, was
deemed to be its owner for the purpose of an associated ship arrest. Had
no arbitral award existed to fortify Hilane‘s claims it could have arrested
an associated ship in relation to the Sheng Mu on the basis that the latter
was ‗the ship concerned‘. The fact that it has pursued its claims by way of
arbitration does not alter the situation. The award is one in respect of the
Sheng Mu, which is the ship concerned for the purpose of an associated
ship arrest.

[33] The second point is related to the argument about the constitutional
implications of construing the deeming provision in s 3(7)(c) too broadly.
Action Partner submitted that insofar as the deeming provision operated
in respect of claims against Action Partner as charterer, those claims
should be limited to ‗only those claims which relate to the core of the
charterparty, and should exclude ancillary agreements such as the
indemnities‘. This prompted an argument from Hilane that its claims
were monetary claims arising not from the two LOIs but from the
charterparty itself. I do not think it necessary to resolve this issue, which
can more properly be canvassed at the trial, because in my view these
claims, even if technically arising in terms of the LOIs, are nonetheless
claims against Phiniqia as charterer and relate to the core of the
charterparty.

[34] This was a voyage charterparty for the carriage of a consignment of
coking coal from the port of loading to a port of discharge. It was

accordingly a contract of affreightment, that is, a contract for the carriage
of goods by sea.26 The central obligations assumed by Hilane as carrier
under that contract were therefore to load the cargo, issue bills of lading,
carry the cargo and deliver it to the holder of those bills of lading. The
problems between Hilane and Golden Waves arose because Phiniqia
exercised its right to have a second set of bills of lading issued to replace
the original bills, and then did not surrender the original bills. They were
compounded when it asked that the cargo be discharged without
production of the original bills of lading.

[35] In each case Phiniqia was exercising a right that it had under the
rider clauses of the charterparty. In return for the exercise of those rights
it was obliged to furnish the LOIs. The first LOI dealt with the issue of
bills of lading, a central feature of any contract of affreightment. It starts
by saying that ‗we, the undersigned, the Charterers‘ request the issue of a
second set of bills of lading on altered terms and goes on to say ‗we
hereby guarantee as follows‘. Whether or not the LOI constitutes an
agreement separate from the charterparty, it was furnished by Phiniqia
pursuant to its contractual obligations under the charterparty and in its
capacity as charterer of the vessel.

[36] The second LOI is in the same category. It arose from the request
that the cargo be discharged – the last act by the carrier on completion of
the voyage – without production of the original bills of lading. Once
again the charterparty required that acting on the request meant that the
charterer had to furnish an LOI, and Phiniqia did so. In both instances it

26 Stewart C Boyd CBE QC et al Scrutton on Charterparties and Bills of Lading (21 ed, 2008) articles
1 and 3. The conclusion in Montelindo Compania Naviera SA v Bank of Lisbon and SA Ltd 1969 (2)
SA 127 (W) at 137H-138A and 138E-H that a time or voyage chartertparty is a lease is incorrect.

was exercising its rights under the charterparty and in return performing
its reciprocal obligations under the charterparty. Its liability as charterer
cannot be separated from its liability under the LOIs. Hilane‘s claims
relate to the core of the charterparty. Accordingly, even on the
construction contended for by Action Partner, Hilane‘s claims lay against
Phiniqia as charterer.

[37] It follows that both legal points raised by Action Partner must fail.
Accordingly, and subject to proof of association, an arrest of the Silver
Star at the instance of Hilane was permissible. For the reasons set out in
the judgment of Ponnan JA, I agree that association was established on
the requisite balance of probabilities. I accordingly agree with him that
the appeal should be dismissed with costs, such costs to include those
consequent upon the employment of two counsel where two counsel were
employed.

M J D WALLIS
JUDGE OF APPEAL

Ponnan JA (Wallis, Pillay and Zondi JJA and Gorven AJA
concurring)
[38] I have had the benefit of considering the judgment of my colleague
Wallis JA. I share his views and the conclusions reached by him in regard
to the first two issues on appeal. The issue that remains for decision in
this appeal, to which I now turn, is whether on the facts the requisite
association has been established.

[39] It is well settled that Hilane bears the onus of demonstrating that
the arrest was justified and this includes proving the alleged association
on a balance of probabilities (Cargo Laden and Lately Laden on Board
The MV Thalassini AVGI v MV Dimitris 1989 (3) SA 820 (A) at 834F-G;
Bocimar NV v Kotor Overseas Shipping Ltd 1994 (2) SA 563 (A) at
581B-E). But, as Wallis observes (at 292):
‗The task of proving the association is complicated by the relative inaccessibility of
the key information required to demonstrate the identity of the person or persons who
control the two ship-owning companies . . . In the circumstances an applicant for
arrest is confronted with the heavy burden of proving a disputed matter on a balance
of probabilities on the papers when it has no direct access to the relevant information
and may well be confronted with the withholding of information, disingenuousness
and downright dishonesty.‘
In view of that difficulty the fact that the response to an allegation that
there is an association between two vessels is untruthful, evasive and
economical on detail will be a relevant factor in determining whether the
applicant has discharged the onus of proof resting on it.

[40] The purpose of the Act is to make the loss fall where it belongs by
reason of ownership, and in the case of a company, ownership or control
of the shares (The Berg at 712A). And, as Marais JA pointed out (albeit in
a minority judgment) in MV Heavy Metal: Belfry Marine Ltd v Palm Base
Maritime SDN BHD 1999 (3) SA 1083 (SCA) (The Heavy Metal) para 4:
‗The way in which this was done was, first, by describing in s 3(7)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) the
circumstances in which ships were to be regarded as associated and, secondly, by enacting
certain deeming provisions in s 3(7)(b)(i), (ii) and (iii) which are obviously designed not only
to defeat defensive stratagems which shipowners might deliberately deploy to ward off
potential arrests of associated ships by disguising their ownership or their control of such
ships, but also to allow it to be shown even in a case where no such motive existed where
power of control really lay.‘

Those sections require that in relation to both the ship concerned and the
associated ship a ‗person‘ must be identified who ‗controls‘ (or
controlled) the companies in question. The level of control required is
that the person must control the overall destiny of the company (The
Kadirga 5 (No 1) J A Chapman & Co Ltd v Kadirga Denizcilik ve Ticaret
AS SCOSA C12 (N) at C14E). In his consideration of the concept of
control as employed in the Act in The Heavy Metal para 8, Smalberger JA
writing for the majority (Nienaber JA and Melunsky AJA concurring)
expressed himself thus:
‗The subsection [3(7)(b)(ii)] elaborates upon and refines the concept of control by that
person. Control is expressed in terms of power. If the person concerned has power,
directly or indirectly, to control the company he/she shall be deemed (―geag . . .
word‖) to control the company. ―Power‖ is not circumscribed in the Act. It can be the
power to manage the operations of the company or it can be the power to determine
its direction and fate. Where these two functions happen to vest in different hands, it
is the latter which, in my view, the Legislature had in mind when referring to ―power‖
and hence to ―control‖.‘
According to Wallis (at 187) the process of comparison that follows upon
this identification is intended to be a simple one. He adds:
‗The maritime claimant identifies the party who controls the company that owned the
ship concerned and identifies the party who controls the company that owns the
associated ship that it seeks to arrest. The result of those exercises is then compared.
If they correspond, in the sense that the same person or persons control both
companies, then the requisite association is established. If they are not the same then
the association is not established.‘

[41] It was not in dispute that Phiniqia is owned or controlled by
Tradeline, a limited liability company incorporated according to the laws
of the United Arab Emirates. The evidence showed that Phiniqia,
Tradeline and Stellar Shipping Co LLC were all under the common
control of the principal shareholder being a Mr Majid Al Ghurair as part

of a group of companies, active in various fields and bearing his name.
The crux of the factual dispute therefore related to the ownership or
control of the Silver Star. In the founding affidavit dated 14 August 2013
filed in support of the application to set aside the arrest, Mr Norton,
Action Partner‘s attorney, appears to have relied principally on
information furnished to him by Captain AK Rathee, who was said to be
the Chief Executive Officer of Stellar Ocean Transport LLC (Stellar
Ocean), which managed all the vessels operated by Stellar Shipping as
well as the Silver Star. He annexed to his affidavit Action Partner‘s
certificate of incorporation dated 23 June 2009, which reflected Mr
Ahamed Mubarak Habeeb as the sole registered shareholder and both him
and Mr Mujeebur Rahman Habeeb as its Directors. Mr Norton stated:
‗14.
I confirm that I have further been advised by Captain AK Rathee that Mr Habeeb has
confirmed to him that he is not a nominee shareholder and holds the shares for his personal
account and that Tradeline LLC does not own or control the applicant in any sense.‘

[42] Both Captain Rathee and Mr Habeeb deposed to confirmatory
affidavits on behalf of the appellant. Captain Rathee stated:
‗6
Furthermore, I confirm that I am personally aware of the facts relating to the purchase
of the mv ―Silver Star‖ by Mr Habeeb as SOT [Stellar Ocean] handled that transaction
for him as managers of the vessel.
I am, therefore, aware of the fact that Mr Habeeb was offered and accepted Action
Partner Limited as a vehicle to own the mv ―Silver Star‖ and that he personally paid
the margin for the vessel out of his funds partially held by him and partially held by
SOT and that SOT then arranged for him the transfer of the vessel to Action Partner
Limited, the balance of the purchase price being funded by the mortgagee bank.

I can also confirm that I have personal knowledge of the fact that Mr Habeeb is
certainly no nominee and SOT trades the ―Silver Star‖ for the account of Action
Partner Limited which I know to be controlled by Mr Habeeb and no one else.‘
Mr Habeeb added:
‗7
… I confirm that:
7.1
I am the sole shareholder of Action Partner Limited, being the owners of the
mv ―Silver Star‖;
7.2
I hold those shares for my own account and not as a nominee;
7.3
Tradeline LLC does not own or control Action Partner Limited. I do.
. . .
I also confirm that by agreement between the applicant and Stellar Ocean Transport
LLC, the latter are the technical and commercial managers of the ―Silver Star‖.‘
In other words the only evidence tendered in response to the evidence of
association was silent about the business or trading activities of the Silver
Star, a matter of considerable importance as later emerged.

[43] Mr Cunningham, Hilane‘s attorney of record, who deposed to the
answering affidavit on its behalf, demonstrated that this explanation was
by no means a complete picture of the relationship between the different
companies. He stated:
‗10. I annex hereto … copies of reports compiled by Lloyd`s List Intelligence on
Action Partner and the vessel [Silver Star] as well as copies of reports by Sea-Web …
both of which are known to be reputable sources of maritime intelligence, on Stellar
Shipping Co LLC (―Stellar Shipping‖), Action Partner and Tradeline.
11. It is evident from these reports that: -
11.1. Stellar Shipping is the operator of the vessel;
11.2. Stellar Shipping is a subsidiary of Tradeline;
11.3. Stellar Ocean Transport LLC (―Stellar Ocean‖) is a subsidiary of Tradeline;
11.4. Stellar Ocean is the ship manager and beneficial owner of the vessel;
11.5. the vessel is group owned by Tradeline.
11.6. Habeeb is the vice chairman of Tradeline

12. I attach hereto … a copy of a Bill of Sale dated 7 June 2011 wherein Stellar
Shipping purported to sell the vessel to Action Partner for the sum of
US$49,800,000.00.
13. In terms of a mortgage agreement entered into between Action Partner, as owner
of the vessel and Emirates NDB Bank, as mortgagee, on 18 October 2011 … the
actual borrower in terms of the facility agreement dated 6 September 2011, entered
into in accordance with the mortgage, was Stellar Shipping.
14. The amount advanced to Stellar Shipping in accordance with the facility (loan)
agreement (usually used to pay the purchase price for the vessel in part or in full) was
US$40,600, 00.00. The source of the balance of the purchase price of US$9,200,00.00
for the purchase of the vessel is unknown.
15. The Applicant has submitted that as at the date of the arrest, the sole shareholder
(and thus beneficial owner of all of the shares) in Action Partner was Habeeb.
16. Habeeb acquired the shares on 8 June 2011 … the day after the signature of the
Bill of Sale and delivery of the vessel to Action Partner.
17. If these contentions are to be accepted, Habeeb must have acquired the
shareholding by payment of the value of the vessel, given that Stellar Shipping
borrowed the funds to pay the majority of the purchase price (some USD50 million).
…
19. Moreover, Habeeb is the vice chairman of Tradeline. This is apparent from the
SeaWeb report to which I refer hereunder.
20. Given this association, and the fact that Tradeline is a holding company of both
Stellar Shipping and Stellar Ocean, and that, indeed, Habeeb is also a ―partner‖ of
Phiniqia – which it is common cause is owned and or controlled by Tradeline - and
further that Tradeline, again according to SeaWeb is the ―Group Owner‖ of the vessel,
it is significant that Habeeb did not disclose his close contact and association with
Tradeline and the other entities owned or controlled by the latter. This is more
surprising given that the SeaWeb report to which I refer to above expressly states that
the vessel is ―group owned‖ by Tradeline.
…
25. In addition to the above, I attach hereto … a judgment in Stellar Shipping Co LLC
v Hudson Shipping Lines [2010] EWHC 2985 (Comm) dated 18 November 2012,
wherein it is recorded, inter alia, that:

“The shipping division of Tradeline was spun off as an independent identity and
Stellar Shipping Co LLC was incorporated in 1999 to supplement the trading
activities with an initial fleet of eight dry bulkers”
26. I also attach hereto . . . company profiles from the Dubai Chamber of Commerce
for Tradeline and Stellar Shipping respectively. It is evident from these reports that:
26.1. Habeeb holds a 25% share in Tradeline and is described as a ―Partner‖;
26.2. Majid Saif Ahmad Al Ghurair (―MSA Al Ghurair‖) holds a 51% share in
Tradeline and is described as a ―Managing Partner‖;
26.3. Habeeb holds a 19% share in Stellar Shipping and is described as a ―Managing
Partner‖;
26.4. MSA Al Ghurair holds a 51% share in Stellar Shipping and is also described as
a ―Managing Partner‖.
27. MSA Al Ghurair is the owner and/or controller of the Al Ghurair group of
companies, of which, inter alia, Tradeline is a party.
28. In the circumstances, I submit that despite the assertions of Captain AK Rathee
(―Rathee‖) in regard to Habeeb`s alleged claim that he is the sole share holder of
Action Partner (for his own account) it is clear that the owner of the vessel, Action
Partner, and, indeed, Stellar Shipping and Stellar Ocean, are owned and/or controlled
by Tradeline and its majority shareholder, MSA Al Ghurair.
29. The Respondent`s claims are therefore enforceable against the mv ―Silver Star‖ as
the deemed owner of the mv ―Sheng Mu‖ was Phiniqia which was ultimately owned
or controlled by Tradeline at the time the claim arose and which also ultimately owns
or controls the mv ―Silver Star‖ as contemplated in subsections 3(6) and (7) of the
Act.‘

[44] Ms Pitman, Mr Norton‘s colleague, deposed to the replying
affidavit on behalf of the appellant on 16 August 2013. Like Mr Norton,
she relied primarily on information furnished to her by Captain Rathee.
She stated:
‗19
Also in 2008 Mr Habeeb decided to start his own Ship Management Company, being
Stellar Ocean Transport LLC (―SOT‖). The use of the name ―Stellar‖ in the United

Arab Emirates is quite popular and, therefore, common and there are numerous
companies with ―Stellar‖ as part of their name.
In the United Arab Emirates it is necessary for any local company to be sponsored by
a local citizen who must own at least 51% of the shares. Consequently, although the
company was started and managed by Mr Habeeb it was necessary for a local sponsor
to be found who held 51% of the shares in the company.
I have been advised that this shareholding is not nominal and that the local citizen
must hold such shares for his own account, which is, indeed, what occurred in the
case of this company. The sponsor was Mr Ahmad Salam Ahamd Darwish, who is
entirely unrelated to the Al- Ghurair family. Consequently, Mr Habeeb took a
shareholding of 23% in the company which he managed, which he held until he sold
his interest in the company on (date).
…
In any event Mr Habeeb is, as a shareholder in the group, aware of the fact that
Tradelines LLC (―Tradelines‖), Stellar Shipping LLC (―Stellar Shipping‖) and
Phiniqia International Shipping LLC (―Phiniqia‖) are and always have been controlled
as to 51% of shareholding by Mr Majid Saif Ahmed Al-Ghurair. It is incorrect to
characterise Tradelines as a holding company. It is not. Mr Al-Ghurair independently
controls all three companies through his 51% shareholding in each.
…
In or about 2008 Tradelines, Phiniqia and Stellar Shipping were badly affected by the
economic downturn.
Stellar Shipping then had a number of new-buildings on order from various shipyards.
The ―Silver Star‖ was one such vessel on order by Stellar Shipping, her price being
around US$50m.
Stellar Shipping had arranged a loan of US$40,6m from Emirates NDB Bank, the
remaining roughly US$9.5m being payable by it to the yard.

It was no longer in a financial position to pay the US$9.5m and offered the vessel to
its shareholders
Mr Habeeb, who then owned the ―Mega Star‖ through a special purpose vehicle,
believed that purchasing a sister vessel would bring economy of management and
profitability and decided to purchase the vessel personally. Both vessels were
specifically suited for the Indonesian- Indian coal business with their 80,000 DWT
cranes and gears.
…
Indeed, in this particular case, as I have indicated, with regard to paragraph 11.1,
Stellar Shipping has nothing whatsoever to do with the vessel. It sold the vessel on to
Action Partner Limited and the vessel is commercially managed and, thus, operated
by SOT.
With regard to paragraph 11.2, Stellar Shipping is not a subsidiary of Tradeline
although Mr Al-Ghurair is the 51% shareholder in both companies.
…
With regard to paragraph 11.6, it is admitted that Mr Habeeb is the Vice Chairman of
Tradeline. He was conferred this honour as a minority shareholder in the company
and because of his status. This, however, has nothing whatsoever to do with his
personal investment in Action Partner Limited in respect of the vessel.
The sale referred to in paragraph 12 was not a purported sale but an actual sale, as
documented by the Bill of Sale.
With regard to paragraph 13, it is very well known that mortgagee banks go to some
lengths to ensure that if a group company is taking a loan the main companies of the
group stand as guarantors for that loan. Yet the loan documentation does not mention
Tradeline, Stellar Shipping or Phiniqia. This in itself is, it is submitted, a telling fact
that such companies are not related to Action Partner Limited.

Mr Cunningham avers that the actual borrower was Stellar Shipping. That is not the
case. The facility Letters were, indeed, concluded between Stellar Shipping and the
Bank. However, before the loan was granted Stellar Shipping encountered financial
difficulties and could not continue with the transaction. It was at that point that Mr
Habeeb agreed to step in and buy the vessel from Stellar Shipping, which he did in
terms of the relevant deed of sale.
With regard to paragraph 14, the amount was advanced not to Stellar Shipping but to
Action Partner Limited. The source of the balance has already been dealt with.
…
With regard to paragraph 16, there was an administrative delay in the transfer of the
shares the day after the sale. In fact, the shares were supposed to have been
transferred before the sale. However, nothing turned on this and the shares were
subsequently transferred as they were supposed to be.‘

[45] On 21 August 2013 Mr Norton deposed to yet a further affidavit to
respond to the obvious difficulties facing Action Partner arising from this
material. He attached a draft affidavit by Captain Rathee, in which the
latter stated:
‗11
I went through the affidavit and advised that the facts contained therein were correct
and could be deposed. The affidavit was subsequently deposed by Ms Pitman and
filed.
…
In re-reading it, there are, indeed, a number of inaccuracies. In the circumstances it is
as well that I identify and correct them and also identify which information I provided
to ENS as being within my personal knowledge and which was provided to me by Mr
Habeeb as only being within his personal knowledge.
…

The facts contained in paragraph 19 were provided by me and the paragraph is not
quite correct in that I meant to refer to the use of the word ―Stellar‖ worldwide, not
just in the United Arab Emirates.
…
Paragraph 20 was provided to me for verification in the form that it was finally
deposed and I confirmed it but it is also incorrect in that it is possible to have a citizen
of the United Arab Emirates sponsor a company by holding a 51% shareholding for a
fee without any active participation, financial or otherwise in respect thereof.
In the case of SOT I am personally aware of the fact that Mr Ahmad Salam Ahamd
Darwish is such a sponsor and that the company was until 24 September 2012
controlled by Mr Habeeb.
…
Paragraph 34 is not quite correct in that Mr Habeeb has subsequently reminded me
that the owning company of the ―Majestic Star‖ was controlled by his brother, Mr
Mujeebur Rahman Habeeb, as sole shareholder, and the vessel was beneficially
owned by him, not Mr Habeeb. However, by arrangement with his brother the
proceeds from the sale of that vessel were used to part pay the difference between the
loan amount provided by the bank and the sale price for the purchase of the mv
―Silver Star‖.
…
Paragraph 45 is within my personal knowledge in that I am fully aware of the
transaction in terms of which Mr Habeeb took the vessel through Action Partner
Limited. Tradeline does, however, continue to be a corporate guarantor of the
obligations of Stellar Shipping as borrower on the loan but neither are guarantors of
the obligations of Action Partner Limited`s performance under the ship`s mortgage.
…
I am afraid that paragraphs 48 and 49 are incorrect. I understood this paragraph to be
making the point that neither Tradeline nor Stellar Shipping were guarantors of

Action Partner Limited`s commitment under the ship`s mortgage agreement. Clearly a
cursory read of paragraph (b) of the Preamble to the Mortgage at page 117 of the
papers makes it clear that Stellar Shipping is the borrower from the bank. I believed
that ENS had grasped this point and I believe that I was reading these paragraphs as if
this point had been understood and was being confirmed, not the opposite, as I
subsequently understand to be the case.
In fact, as is clear from the Facility Letter that has been provided to the respondent as
a consequence of its request for it, Stellar Shipping remains the borrower and there
are, indeed, corporate and personal guarantees in place from Tradelines and the Stellar
Shipping shareholders. The guarantees are for the performance of Stellar Shipping,
not Action Partner Limited for its commitments in terms of the mortgage agreement.
With regard to paragraph 50, this is correct in the sense that the monies were
advanced for the purchase of the ―Silver Star‖ by Action Partner Limited. However, it
was advanced in terms of a loan to Stellar Shipping.
The facts in paragraphs 52, 54, 60 and 61 are within my personal knowledge and are
correct.
…
I now understand from ENS that the fact that Stellar Shipping remains borrower in
respect of the loan for the purchaser of the ―Silver Star‖ and that Trade Line and the
shareholders of Stellar Shipping have provided guarantees in respect of the loan is to
be construed on the documents as a recognition that the only position of Stellar
Shipping is that it remains on paper liable to pay the Bank whereas Action Partners
Ltd is actually the true payor.‘

[46] No doubt the dispute of fact raised by the affidavits has to be
approached in line with what was stated in Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v
Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd 1984 (3) SA 623 (A) at 634E-635C.
However, a court will not necessarily be hamstrung in its determination
of a matter such as this by a party‘s denial of facts on affidavit,

particularly where, as here, there appears to be a wealth of circumstantial
and other evidence pointing to association.  Mr Norton‘s affidavit had
done little to refute the information presented by Mr Cunningham, much
of which was in fact undisputed.

[47] The Sea-Web report annexed to Mr Cunningham‘s affidavit: (a)
describes Stellar Ocean and Stellar Shipping as subsidiaries of Tradeline;
(b) describes Tradeline as being the group owner and Stellar Ocean as
being the ship manager of the following five vessels, namely the
Diamond Star, Emerald Star, Mega Star, Ruby Star and Silver Star; (c)
reflects the year of build of the Silver Star as 2011, its shipbuilder as
Cosco and its operator as Stellar Shipping; and (d) lists Tradeline`s
address as ‗[c]are of Stellar Ocean Transport LLC, Suite 4008, 4th Floor,
Al Rigga Business Centre …‘ and its corporate office bearers as: Mr
Majid Saif Al Ghurair – Chairman; Mr Ahmed Hussain Lafir – Managing
Director; Mr A.M. Habeeb – Vice Chairman; and Mr Raman Madhok –
Chief Executive. The Dubai Chamber Company Profile lists Tradeline‘s
shareholders and their respective shareholding as follows: Mr Al Ghurair
– 51%; Mr AM Habeeb - 25%; and Mr Lafir – 24%. It also reflects the
shareholders and their respective shareholding in Stellar Shipping as
follows: Mr Al Ghurair – 51%; Mr AM Habeeb – 19%; Mr Lafir – 15%
and Ahmed Ahmad Iqbal – 15%. The appellant does not appear to dispute
the respective shareholdings of Mr A Ghurair and AM Habeeb in
Tradeline and Stellar Shipping. Nor does it dispute that Mr Al Ghurair is
the controller of the Al Ghurair group of companies, of which, inter alia,
Tradeline is a part. In effect most of this material was undisputed. It
showed common control of a group of shipping companies and common
operation of the fleet including the Silver Star.

[48] It seems that Tradeline`s shipping division was spun off as an
independent entity and Stellar Shipping incorporated in 1999. By 2006 it
appears that Stellar Shipping was already operating its own fleet and had
in fact ordered two new vessels from Cosco (Dalian) Shipyard Co Ltd
(Cosco). On 21 October 2010 Cosco wrote to Stellar Shipping with
reference to the ship building contract for the construction of the Silver
Star dated 6 December 2006. That letter, which was marked for the
attention of Captain Rathee, informed Stellar Shipping that it was in
default of its contractual obligations and notified it that Cosco was
cancelling the contract. Ten days later Mr Lafir wrote to Mr Habeeb on a
Tradeline letterhead as follows:
‗We refer to our meeting yesterday in the matter of Vessel M.V. Silver Star. We are
thankful to you for your decision to purchase this Vessel and helped us to deal with
our problem with Cosco Shipyard.
We have discussed this matter with Emirates bank and I am pleased to confirm that in
principal the bank, Trade Line LLC and Stellar Shipping Co, (LLC) are agreeable to
extend the loan facility to you. However we need your confirmation to following
conditions:
(1) You will pay full margin money for this Vessel USD 10 Million (Exact amount to
be ascertained upon delivery of the Vessel). These funds to be arranged by you with
your own independent arrangement.
(2) The bank loan facility is extended to you against your share holding in Trade Line
LLC, Stellar Shipping Co. (LLC), Phiniqia International Shipping L.L.C and any
other Company of Al Ghurair.
…‘

[49] Captain Rathee relied on that letter, which he said recorded the
terms upon which Mr Habeeb ‗took over the transaction‘ from Stellar
Shipping in respect of the Silver Star. However, less than a week later on
6 November 2010, Stellar Ocean instructed the National Bank of Abu
Dhabi to transfer USD 5 million to Stellar Shipping. The email address

on the Stellar Ocean letterhead bearing that instruction is the same as that
of Stellar Shipping. What is more, under the caption ‗payment details‘
Stellar Ocean stated ‗transfer to sister concern‘. That hardly indicated that
these were transactions at arm‘s length. A peculiar feature of the events
after this letter was written was that Stellar Shipping continued to act as if
Mr Habeeb had not taken over the vessel. Thus it negotiated with the
bank in regard to the loan to pay the purchase price and there are no
official bank documents reflecting the revised arrangement.

[49] On 7 June 2011 a Bill of Sale was purportedly signed by Mr Lafir
on behalf of Stellar Shipping in respect of the sale of the Silver Star to
Action Partner ‗in consideration of the sum of US$ 49,800,000.00 paid to
us‘. No evidence was tendered of a payment as reflected in the Bill of
Sale. It was apparently signed in the presence of Captain Rathee, who it
will be recalled was described in Mr Norton‘s founding affidavit as the
CEO of Stellar Ocean. That Bill of Sale reflects Captain Rathee‘s address
and the address of Stellar Shipping as the same address given for Stellar
Ocean in the Standard Ship Management Agreement (the Shipman)
allegedly concluded on 16 May 2011 between Action Partner and Stellar
Ocean in respect of the Silver Star for a period of five years commencing
on 17 June 2011. Mr Habeeb evidently signed the Shipman on behalf of
the appellant and Mr Ihsan Habeeb signed on behalf of Stellar Ocean.
One would imagine that there must have been two bills of sale – one from
Cosco to Stellar Shipping and a second from the latter to Action Partner.
The former has never been produced, nor have we been shown anything
to explain on what basis Cosco reversed its decision to cancel the
shipbuilding contract. Most importantly, if Action Partner was now the
purchaser, why would that not be reflected in the arrangements with

Cosco? The inference is that Stellar Shipping remained the purchaser of
the vessel from Cosco.

[50] Apart from the deed of sale there was little to suggest that Action
Partner had purchased the Silver Star as a transaction independent of
Stellar Shipping and any suggestion of independence was dealt a heavy
blow when the financing of the purchase came to be revealed. It showed
that Stellar Shipping, and not Action Partner, borrowed the money to
effect the purchase. On 18 October 2011 a First Preferred Ship Mortgage
was registered over the Silver Star in favour of Emirates Bank. It
recorded that Emirates Bank had made available to Stellar Shipping
medium term loan facilities in the amount of USD 40 600 000 and that
Action Partner as the owner of the Silver Star had agreed to secure the
liability of Stellar Shipping by granting the Bank a first preferred ship
mortgage over the vessel. That document recorded Action Partner‘s
address for the purposes of notices and the like as ‗4008, Rigga Business
Centre‘ and its PO Box address as ‗82692‘. The former is indeed the
address for Stellar Ocean and the latter for Stellar Shipping. Notices were
to be marked for the attention of ‗Mr Anil Kumar Rathee‘.

[51] In terms of a facility amendment letter dated 6 September 2011
addressed to Stellar Shipping, Emirates Bank recorded that the interest on
the loan advanced to the latter would be debited quarterly to the ‗[c]all
account of M/s Action Partner Limited (0514389287701)‘ and ‗[t]he
principal amount … [would] be repaid semi annually by debiting the
current account of M/s Action Partner Limited‘. We were not told on
what basis Stellar Shipping could agree to repay its debts from Action
Partner‘s funds. The inference is that there was a close relationship
between them in which Stellar Shipping was the dominant party. The

appellant had thus undertaken to repay the loan amount (described in the
document as one ‗[t]o part finance purchase of a marine vessel from
Cosco‘ – which could only have been the Silver Star) advanced by
Emirates Bank to Stellar Shipping plus the interest on that amount.
Action Partner‘s obligation in that regard was to endure until 25 March
2020.

[52] Moreover the facility amendment letter recorded that Stellar
Shipping had irrevocably and unconditionally undertaken the following:
‗- To deposit all charter income of marine vessel – Silver Star in the Call Account No.
0514389287701 of M/s. Action Partner Limited, Hong Kong.
- To accelerate the repayment in case the marine vessel name ―Silver Star‖ generates
adequate revenues.
- To indemnify the Bank against any pollution or environmental liability as may arise
in connection with the operation of the marine vessel.
- The Bank reserves the right to accelerate the repayment incase the marine vessel
generates adequate revenues.
…
* Authorize to debit your account in case of non-availability of funds in M/s. Action
Partner Limited, Hong Kong account.‘
The effect of these provisions was that Action Partner could enjoy no
benefit from the trading operations of the Silver Star until the loan was
discharged, and under the mortgage it was precluded from selling the
vessel. Its ‗ownership‘ was accordingly purely nominal and not beneficial
and its commercial operations were for the purpose of discharging Stellar
Shipping‘s liability to the bank, a liability for which Mr Habeeb was
personally liable. And as conditions precedent for the ‗continued
availability of facilities, [Stellar Shipping] agreed to sign, execute and
deliver‘ inter alia guarantees from Action Partner, Tradeline, Mr Lafir,
Mr Al Ghurair and Mr Habeeb to the satisfaction of the bank.

[53]  When one examines the response to this powerful array of
evidence pointing in the direction of commonality of control one is struck
by the evasiveness that permeates it. Captain Rathee, the common thread
on the documentary evidence between Stellar Ocean, Stellar Shipping and
Action Partner, simply fails to properly explain how the factual
inaccuracies and inconsistencies occurred in the latter‘s version. To once
again borrow from Marais JA (The Heavy Metal para 21):
‗I do not think that a litigant in motion proceedings who resorts to this kind of
response in the face of a powerful circumstantial showing that, on the probabilities,
whoever ultimately had the power to control the company which owned the guilty
ship also has the power to control the company which owns the ship sought to be
arrested as an associated ship can shelter behind the principles laid down in the case
of Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd. In a few words, such an approach should not be
regarded as giving rise to a genuine dispute of fact.‘
In that, the majority (at 1107J-1108G) were at one with Marais JA.

[54] If Stellar Shipping and Action Partner were truly independent
entities, as Captain Rathee suggests, there would appear to be no
reasonable commercial rationale for the former to agree to sell the vessel
to the latter whilst at the same time retaining liability to the bank for the
loan and indemnifying it in respect of any pollution or environmental
liabilities arising from the operation of the vessel. Moreover, had the
vessel been sold pursuant to an arm‘s length transaction, how, it must be
asked, could Stellar Shipping undertake to deposit all charter income
from the vessel into Action Partner‘s call account or assign the latter‘s
rights to revenue generated from the Silver Star to the bank? It thus seems
not just highly improbable, but plainly inconceivable, that Stellar
Shipping and Action Partner would have acted as they did had the
relationship been anything other than one between closely related

companies. Action Partner has striven to create the impression that Stellar
Ocean Transport has nothing whatsoever to do with Stellar Shipping,
which appears manifestly not to be the case. In addition when the Silver
Star was arrested, whilst in the process of loading a cargo of manganese
ore at Port Elizabeth, she was under a time charter to Oldendorff GmbH
& Co KG of Luebeck. That charterparty dated 26 July 2013 describes
Stellar Ocean as the owners of the vessel. It thus seems to me that the
welter of other evidence adduced, which points ineluctably to
commonality of control, must perforce trump Captain Rathee‘s denial
(albeit a denial under oath).

[55] It follows that the association has been proved on a balance of
probabilities. In the result the appeal must fail and it is accordingly
dismissed with costs, such costs to include those consequent upon the
employment of two counsel where two counsel were employed.

_____________
V PONNAN
JUDGE OF APPEAL

Appearances

For appellant:
D A Gordon SC (with him S Pudifin-Jones)
Instructed by:
Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs, Durban
Honey Attorneys, Bloemfontein

For respondent:

M J Fitzgerald SC (with him J D Mackenzie)

Instructed by:

Bowman Gilfillan, Cape Town

Matsepes, Bloemfontein.

Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa

MEDIA SUMMARY– JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME
COURT OF APPEAL
From:
The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal
Date:
28 November 2014
Status:
Immediate
Please note that the media summary is intended for the benefit of the
media and does not form part of the judgment of the Supreme Court of
Appeal.
MV Silver Star: Owners of MV Silver Star v Hilane Ltd
The SCA today dismissed an appeal against a decision of the
Eastern Cape High Court upholding the arrest of the Silver Star as an
associated ship in terms of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105
of 1983. The plaintiff, Hilane Ltd, had chartered a vessel, the Sheng Mu
to a company called Phiniqia for the carriage of coal from Bandar Abbas,
Iran to India. A dispute had arisen over the payment of the purchase price
of the coal and as a result the Sheng Mu had been arrested in Napier, New
Zealand. Phiniqia had failed to secure its release or to meet the claims of
the arresting party in relation to the purchase price of the coal,
notwithstanding a court order that it do so. As a result Hilane had
obtained an arbitration award in London that Phiniqia indemnify it for
these claims. Pursuant to that it caused the Silver Star to be arrested in
Port Elizabeth as an associated ship in relation to the Sheng Mu.

The registered owner of the Silver Star contended that a claim on a
London arbitration award does not arise in respect of a particular ship and
that claims under letters of indemnity given by a charterer are not claims
arising out of a charterparty or an agreement for the use and hire of a
ship. The court held that these contentions were incorrect. It also rejected

a contention that on the facts the two vessels were not associated ships.
Accordingly the appeal was dismissed.