This was a claim brought by the plaintiff, a UAE company, against the defendant vessel and its owner, Jubba General Trading Co LLC, and master for USD 705,217.61 with costs and interest for payments made by the plaintiff on behalf of the vessel. The plaintiff sought the arrest of the vessel, and its sale if security was not provided.

The vessel arrived in Pakistan at Karachi Port around 21 August 2017. Due to a technical fault, it became stranded at Karachi and was finally abandoned by its owner. The vessel then became unseaworthy.

The plaintiff argued that since October 2017, it had incurred expenses at the instructions of, and on behalf of the shipowner, by providing supplies and necessaries, including bunkers, provisions, food, water, fuel, and other ancillary products to the crew of the vessel, as well as port dues and mooring charges. The two cheques issued in favour of the plaintiff to pay for these services were dishonoured.

The plaintiff further argued that, applying the principles of equity, the plaintiff's claim should be given preference over the mortgagee's claim, because the latter has not acted diligently. Knowing that the shipowner was insolvent, the mortgagee bank, Commercial Bank International PSC, nonetheless delayed in filing its proceeding [see Commercial Bank International PSC v MV Miski (CMI2188)].

Held: The plaintiff's claim is partly upheld to the extent of USD 120,710.60. No conclusive evidence has been produced by the plaintiff that the mortgagee bank has not initiated proceedings or acted negligently, which would justify the modifying or disturbing of the ordinary order of priority of claims.

Even though the matter proceeded ex parte against the defendants, it is still the duty of the Court to evaluate the plaintiff's claim and the evidence led within the parameters of law. Two issues require consideration:

1. Whether any legal relationship exists between the plaintiff and the defendants?
2. Whether the defendants are liable to make any payments to the plaintiff?

As to the first point, a Memorandum of Agreement was exhibited, as well as correspondence for the settlement of outstanding dues and debts. A business relationship clearly exists between the plaintiff and the shipowner.

As to the second point, only those documents can be considered which relate to the period from which the vessel entered the territorial waters of Pakistan and not before that. Many of the plaintiff's outstanding invoices as well as its grievance about the dishonouring of cheques relate to a period when the vessel was at a United Arab Emirates port. The plaintiff's claim before this date in respect of purported illegalities committed by the defendants cannot be the subject matter of this proceeding. The plaintiffs should rather institute an independent proceeding in a Court of competent jurisdiction. Considering the master of the MV Miski, it is clear that he is neither a necessary nor a proper party to these proceedings.

As far as the wages of the crew and the master of the vessel is concerned, they enjoy a maritime lien. This type of claim has precedence over the mortgagee's claim; whereas, the plaintiff's claim for necessaries will be considered after the settlement of the last two claims. There is a judicial consensus that the charge of a Port Authority is ranked at the top of all claims, provided the latter has acted diligently.