Abstract
This piece of work demonstrates, “admiralty and maritime law” covers a broad range of subjects. This field of law has its own rules relating to jurisdiction and procedure.
Classically, maritime law was a species of commercial law, and in many countries it is still treated as such. Thus, this paper produce topics of a Maritime Liens In Singapore.

This paper is designed to give an introductory survey of a Maritime lien in tha law of Singapore. Only an outline of the basic principle is attempted and, where necessary, the problem areas highlighted. No In-depth study is made that would be beyond the intended scope.

Table of Contents
Abstract 1

Table of Contents 2

Introduction 3

Defination of Maritime Lien 3

Priority of Claims 5

Conclusion 6

References 7

Introduction
The Maritime lien is an unique creature in maritime law. While its historical origin is shrouded in some obscurity, its juridical nature is fairly well settled. In essence, it is an encumbrance or change over a ship or other like cargo and freight, which accrues from the moment the under lying claims giving rise to it attaches, travels secretively with the res (except one brought about the judicial) and is carried into effect by an action in rem. A party entitled to a maritime lien is not only to utilise the action in rem to give effect to it, but is also accorded higher priority vis-à-vis other maritime claimant and so enjoys he better chance of having its claim satisfied when proceed of sale of the vessel are insufficient to meet all the claims against the res. A maritime lien remains indestructible despite any change of ownership except one brought about by the judicial sale, although for the very same reason, there is always a risk that a ship purchased other than trough judicial liens, which unlike the mortgages, are not recorded in any registers (Thomas,1980 and Price 1940). Unlike English law, and hence the laws of Singapore (In The Halcyon Isle, 1981) and Malaysia (In The Dong Nai,1996), claims which ar recognised to give rise to maritime liens consist of salvage, damage done by a ship, seamen’s and master’s wages bottomry and master’s disbursement (The Bold Buccleugh, 1851). Of these masters’s wage and disbursement liens are creature of statute. The remaining liens owe their origins and development to the English admiralty courts in the exercise of its admiralty jurisdiction although, with the exception of bottomry liens, their respective scope have been legislatively extended. Maritime liens or some analogous concept are recognise in other jurisdictions as well but there is no international uniformity as to the type of claims that attract a maritime lien. The lex fori should be use when determining which claim attracts a maritime liens(The Halcyon Isle, 1981). The categories of maritime lien can only be expended by the legislature The Acrux, 1965 and The Halcyon Isle 1981). There is considerable judicial reservation towards recognising new categories of maritime liens as, by its nature, a maritime lien is capable of affecting other parties like purchasers and mortgagees of ships, and ultimately, maritime commerce at large.

Definition of Maritime Lien
Although the historical origins the of the maritime lien are unclear, the various definitions11 pronounced by the court are consistent in term of the juridical nature of lien. A few of the more important judicial definitions are given here. Perhaps the most oft-cited of this is that of Sir John Jervis in The Bold Buccleugh(1851); … a maritime lien is well defined by Lord Tenterden, to mean a claim or privilege upon a thing to be carried into effect by legal process; and Mr. Justice story explains that process to be proceeding in rem ... . This claim or privilege travels with the thing, into whosoever possession it may come. It is inchoate from the moment the claim or the privilege attaches, and when carried into effect into effect by legal process, by a proceeding in rem, relates back to the period when it first attached.
The classic definition enunciated in The Bold Buccleugh was cited with approval by Lord Diplock in The Halcyon Isle. In The Ripon City (1897), Gorell Barnes J described the maritime lien as:
... a privilege claim upon a vessel in respect of service done to it, or injury caused by it, to be carried into effect by legal process. It is a right acquired by one over a thing belonging to another – a jus in re aliena. It is, so to speak, a subtraction from the absolute property of the owner in the thing.
Lord Diplock in The Halcyon Isle thought the last sentence of this definition was inaccurate if it is to be regarded as‘ suggesting the owner of the ship, once it has become the subject of maritime lien, can no longer create a charge on the whole property in the ship which will rank in priority in existing lien’(1981).
In The Tervaete (1922), Scrutton LJ to maritime lien as:
... a privilege or lien ... in this sense, that if the vessel comes within English territorial waters it may arrested and the claim or privilege on it will date back to the time of the lien.
Bankes LJ in the same decision considered that a maritime lien properly be regarded in one of three ways:
... as a step in the process of enforcing a claim against the owner of the ship, or as a remedy or partial remedy in itself, or as a means of securing priority of claim...(Ibid).
Another definition of the maritime lien which is often referred to is that of Scott LJ in The Tolten (1946):
The essence of the ‘privilege’ was and still is, weather in Continental or English law, that it come into existence automatically without any antecedent formality, and simultaneously with the cause of action, and confers a true change on the ship and freight. ... The charge go with the ship everywhere, even in the hand of the purchaser for value without notice, and has a certain ranking with other maritime lien, all of which take precedence over mortgages. A ship to which maritime lien is attached becomes subject to an Admiralty action in rem under the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Acts (Singapore Statutes, 1970 and Port of Singapore Authority Act). A maritime lien is imposed in respect of each of these claims: a) Salvage service; b) Wages of mariners and liabilities as well as disbursements properly incurred by the master; c) Collision damage; d) Bottomry bond and bond repondentia; e) Fees and tonnage taxes due under section 404(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act.

Priority of Claim
Where two or more such liens arise the court has to determine their order priority (The rule of Supreme Court, 1970 and McGuffie-Fugeman-Gray 1964), especially where the ship owner are insolvent and proceeds of sale of the ship are inadequate. A mortgage, whether statutory or equitable, is postponed to claims which carry maritime liens. It is submitted that, subject to certain exceptions, the claim will be paid in the following order: a) By section 324(2) of the Merchant Shipping Act, “salvage in respect of the preservation of life when payable by the owners of the vessel shall be payable in priority to all other claims for salvage”, including property salvage.

b) “[T]he maritime of damage originating in the wrong of the master and the crew of the vessel in fault, and founded on consideration of public policy for the prevention of careless navigation take precedence ... of liens, ex contractu. It absorbs, in the event of the res proving insufficient to meet all demand, the liens of wages and bottomry leaving them to be enforced by proceedings against the person of the owners.” (Tenterden, 1881 and The Port of Singapore Act, 1971)

c) In The Singapore (1882), a straits settlements case, a seaman, who was prevented from the continuing employment on the ship by a mortgagee taking possession of her, had a maritime lien on the ship for his wages, entitling to rank before the mortgagee, although no voyage was made by the vessel during the period of his service.

d) The Merchant Shipping Act section 404(2) provides: “All unpaid fees and tonnage taxes due to register (of shipping) shall constitute a maritime lien on the ship subject only to liens for wages and salaries.”

e) The master’s liability for necessaries supplied to the ship has priority over the mortgage debt (The Limerick, Maclachlan’s Law of Merchant Shipping, 1911 and Merchant Shipping Act). In The Jenny Lind case (1872), the suppliers of necessaries were held to be entitled t proceeds of the sale of the ship and freight in priority over the master lien for wages and disbursements when supplied by the order of a master who was the part owner of the ship.

f) Provided that the straits settlement case of The Chow Phya (1874) is still good law, Sidgreaves C.J. held that the suppliers of necessaries to a ship is entitled to a maritime lien on the ship. In The “Halcyon Isle”(1977) Kulasekaram J. held that the ship mortgagees’ claim was entitled to priority over the claim of the plaintiff’s as supplier of necessaries and services.

In the principle, a claimant suing in an admiralty action in rem is in a more advantageous position than one in personal action.

Conclusion
One purpose of the maritime lien is to prevent ships from escaping their debts by sailing away. Maritime liens were created to grant a vessel credit in order for her to complete her voyage; thus the lien was created for the benefit of the vessel, not the benefit of the creditor. The completion of her voyage remained paramount to any individual debt a vessel might accrue.

References * There are two invaluable specialist text on this subject: Thomas, Maritime Liens, British Shipping Laws, Vol 14 (1980) and Price, The Law of Maritime Liens (1940). * In The Halcyon Isle [1981] AC 221, a decision on appeal to the Privy Council, Lord Diplock observed that there is no difference between Singapore Law Nad English Law in the matters of admiralty jurisdiction, whether these be of a substantive or procedural nature. * In The Dong Nai [1996] 4 MLJ 454, 463, the court cited a passage from Mallal’s Supreme Court Practice which observes that, just like Singapore law, Malaysian law on the area there is no different from English law. * The Bold Buccleugh (1851) 7 Moo PC 267. * The Halcyon Isle [1981] AC 221. * The Acrux [1965] P 391, 403; The Halcyon Isle [1981] AC 221, 239-241. Cotra Textainer Equipment Management v Baltic Shipping Company [1995] AMC 839. * Sir John Jervis, The Bold Buccleugh (1851) 7 Moo 267, 284. * Gorell Barnes J, In The Ripon City [1897] P 226, 242. * Lord Diplock, In The Halcyon Isle [1981] AC 221, 232-233. * Scrutton LJ, In The Tervaete, [1922] P 259, 270. * Bankes LJ, Ibid, at 267. * Scott LJ, In The Tolten [1965] P 135, 150. * The High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act, S.4(3) (Cap. 6, Singapore Statues, Rev, Ed. 1970). By S. 59(1), Port Of Singapore Authority Act (Cap. 173), the Authority has a lien on the goods for all rates leviable. * The Rules of The Supreme Court, 1970 and McGuffie-Fugement-Gray, 1964. * Tenterden, Treatise of the Law relative to Merchant Ships and Seaman, 1881, 12 Ed. And The Port of Singapore Authority Act, 1971, No. 3. * In The Singapore, In the Straits settlement, (1878) 2 Kyshe Adm. 32; see S. 85, Merchant Shipping Act. * The Limerick 34 L.T. 708; Maclachlan’s law of Merchant Shipping (5th Ed. 1911), pp. 120-121. For master’s liens and remedies for recovery of disbursement and liabilities, see s. 85(2), Merchant Shipping Act. * Sir R.J Phillimore In The Jenny Lind, (1872) 41 L.J Adm. 63 (P.C.) * In The Chow Phya, straits Settlement case, (1874) 2 Kyhse Adm. 19. * Kulasekaram J. , In The Halcyon Isle [1977] 1 M.L.J 145.