Section 1(1)(o) of the Administration of Justice Act 1956 (UK) confers jurisdiction on the High Court of Justice to hear and determine any claim in respect of wages of a ship's crew. It is clear therefore that the Court has jurisdiction to deal with the claim of the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs applied for the sale proceeds of the catch on the two ships that was held in Court to be paid out to them. The Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources intervened, claiming the sale proceeds of the catch. The plaintiffs argued that their maritime lien over the vessels and the catch had precedence over the Ministry's claim.

Held: Judgment for the plaintiffs.

As to the priority of the plaintiff's maritime lien over the vessels, they rely on the common law and ss 201(3) and 201(4) of the Shipping Act 1998. Subsection 201(3) provides that claims for wages by seafarers in respect of their employment on the vessels can be secured by a maritime lien on the vessel: art 4 of the International Convention of Maritime Liens and Mortgages 1993 (MLM Convention 1993). Section 201(4) gives priority to such liens over other claims: art 5, MLM Convention 1993. It follows that whatever claims the Ministry may have will have to give way to the plaintiffs' maritime lien over the vessels.

To the extent the vessels do not include the catch, the plaintiffs concede that neither s 201 nor the MLM Convention 1993 would apply. They rely, however, on s 209(2)(g) of the Shipping Act as conferring general admiralty jurisdiction in rem with respect to wages. They submit that, because the Shipping Act is silent on priorities of maritime liens over the catch, this question would have to be determined in accordance with the common law and to some extent the Administration Act 1956 (UK). The Judge agreed that the catch was subject to the same maritime lien as against the vessels for the same wages debt.

Any claims put forward by the Ministry at this stage remain vague and uncertain. There was no evidence of any seizure of the vessel and its catch. But even if any such seizure had been made the Judge was not satisfied that it would take priority over the plaintiffs' maritime lien. At common law, a maritime lien attaches at date of arrest and has retrospective effect from the date that the right to the lien accrues; in this instance at the earliest, as far back as December 1998. The objection raised by the Ministry is therefore dismissed.