Home
FacebookTwitterSearchMenu
  • Subscribe
  • Subscribe
  • News
  • Features
  • Knowledge Library
  • Columns
  • Customs
  • Jobs
  • Directory
  • FX Rates
  • Categories
    • Categories
    • Africa
    • Air Freight
    • BEE
    • Border Beat
    • COVID-19
    • Crime
    • Customs
    • Domestic
    • Duty Calls
    • Economy
    • Employment
    • Energy/Fuel
    • Events
    • Freight & Trading Weekly
    • Imports and Exports
    • Infrastructure
    • International
    • Logistics
    • Other
    • People
    • Road/Rail Freight
    • Sea Freight
    • Skills & Training
    • Social Development
    • Sustainability
    • Technology
    • Trade/Investment
    • Webinars
  • Contact us
    • Contact us
    • About Us
    • Advertise
    • Send us news
    • Editorial Guidelines

Carol Holness

Sea Freight
Domestic

Maritime claims can oust business rescue proceedings

02 Aug 2018 - by Carol Holness
0 Comments

Share

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • E-mail
  • Print

Creditors with maritime claims can avoid the moratorium on legal proceedings against a company in business rescue – but only if they act timeously.

In the mfv Polaris case, a fishing vessel was arrested at Cape Town by several maritime creditors. The owner subsequently tried to enter into business rescue proceedings on the basis that Section 133 of the Companies Act provides a general moratorium on proceedings against a company in business rescue. They believed that entering business rescue would stay the maritime arrests and the sale of the vessel in terms of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act (“the Admiralty Act”).

The Admiralty Act allows a court to order the sale of any maritime property that has been arrested. This usually happens when the owner fails to defend the claims or abandons the vessel. The sale proceeds are placed in a fund. Creditors with maritime claims lodge their claims against the fund which are considered by a referee who determines their ranking in terms of the Admiralty Act.

Section 10 of the Admiralty Act ring-fences maritime property which has been arrested or attached and prevents it from forming part of insolvent, liquidated or judicially managed estates. The admiralty sale and claim procedure is also not affected by the subsequent sequestration, winding up or judicial management of the owner of the property. In effect, maritime creditors enjoy a statutory preference over non-maritime creditors (if they act quickly).

In the mfv Polaris, the court had to determine how the moratorium on litigation imposed by the Companies Act must be read with Section 10 of the Admiralty Act which specifically provides that maritime property that has been arrested falls outside of the assets to be vested in or administered by a trustee, liquidator, judicial manager or similar person. The court firstly determined that Section 10 extends to a business rescue practitioner.

Therefore if maritime property has been arrested and the debtor (who owns the maritime property) goes into business rescue, then the maritime property does not fall under the control of the business rescue practitioner and maritime creditors are entitled to proceed by way of the judicial sale procedure set out in the Admiralty Act.

However, if the debtor goes into business rescue before the maritime property is arrested, then the moratorium on proceedings against a company in business rescue will apply and the potential maritime creditors will have to comply with the rules of business rescue.

If a foreign debtor goes into the equivalent of business rescue in a foreign jurisdiction then the ring-fencing in terms of Section 10 of the Admiralty Act will still apply unless the foreign proceedings are recognised by a South African court (prior to an arrest in South Africa), which is not a certainty.

If you have a maritime claim against maritime property in South Africa and you think the owner may go into business rescue, you need to arrest first to protect your maritime claim or you will be stuck with business rescue in terms of the Companies Act.

Sign up to our mailing list and get daily news headlines and weekly features directly to your inbox free.
Subscribe to receive print copies of Freight News Features to your door.

ICFF membership – a corporate perspective

0 Comments

Ingrid du Buisson

OPINION: Why is the rand holding strong despite global uncertainty?

0 Comments

Shannon Bold

Why not declare TPT an essential service?

0 Comments

Clifford Evans

SA should begin planning its Agoa exit

0 Comments

Donald MacKay

Ignorant public sector stands in way of border congestion solutions

0 Comments

Anonymous

SA-registered vessels – revisiting an old SOC idea

0 Comments

Clifford Evans

Guarantees and the future of logistics privatisation in SA

0 Comments

Thapelo Seanego

President’s R940-billion infrastructure push hinges on maintenance and asset management to succeed

0 Comments

Bani Kgosana

State of Sars' EDI platform is a concern

0 Comments

Clifford Evans

South Africa’s ports are falling behind – and the economy will pay the price

0 Comments

Hans-Ole Madsen

OPINION: South Africa is at a critical minerals crossroad

0 Comments

Webber Wentzel

Building reliable consumer electronics logistics in a volatile state

0 Comments

Ezelda Botha

  • More

FeatureClick to view

Botswana 20 June 2025

Border Beat

Police clamp down on cross-border crime
17 Jun 2025
Zim's anti-smuggling measures delay legitimate freight operations
06 Jun 2025
Cross-border payments remain a hurdle – Masondo
30 May 2025
More

Poll

Has South Africa's ports turned the corner?

Featured Jobs

Senior Sea/Air Import/Export Controller (Multimodal Controller) Strong on Imports

Tiger Recruitment
East Rand
20 Jun
More Jobs
  • © Now Media
  • Privacy Policy
  • Freight News RSS
  • About Us
  • Advertise
  • Send us news
  • Contact us