Den Norske Bank v. Acemex
Note: This judgment has been upheld by the Court of Appeal, in a judgment delivered on 7 November 2003. To access the note of the Appeal judgment, click here
The court gave summary judgment in favour of Den Norske Bank for US$815,277.09 under a Guarantee and Indemnity signed by the respondents, Acemex Management, relating to a $6m loan facility agreed for the purchase of three vessels, secured by mortgages on them. The court ruled that in exercising its power to arrest one of the vessels, Tropical Reefer, for default, the Bank did not have a duty of care to take into account the interests of the respondent, if it was exercising its power of arrest in good faith to secure repayment. The respondent borrowers had "no reasonable prospect" of establishing at trial that such a duty existed.
DMC Category Rating: Confirmed
Case note contributed by Ann Moore, Law Correspondent for Fairplay International Shipping Weekly. Ann Moore is a contributor to this website
By July 2001 the Bank was owed more than US$2m in unpaid instalments plus interest. The three vessels had other substantial debts, and Spring Reefer and Blue Reefer were to be sold for scrap. Den Norske rejected proposals for renegotiation of the loan, or offers of partial payment, and arrested the Tropical Reefer in Panama, to realise its security under the mortgage. At the time of her arrest, the vessel was laden with a cargo of bananas, for discharge in Germany. The respondent claimed that if the vessel had been allowed to proceed to Germany without delay, before arrest, the proceeds of the subsequent Admiralty sale would have been enough to discharge the outstanding debt. As it was, the bananas deteriorated while the Tropical Reefer was under arrest and had to be jettisoned off Panama at a cost of US$204,140. This was deducted from the sale proceeds as part of the cost of the arrest.
Den Norske asked the Commercial Court for summary judgment for US$815,277.09, the balance remaining after various repayments. The respondents argued that the Bank owed them a duty of care as to how it exercised its right of arrest, and having done so, it owed a further duty as to deciding whether or not to release the vessel. It was in breach of this duty in refusing to take steps to maximise the vesselís sale price. The Bank said no such duty existed.
Lord Templeman said the general duty of care allegedly owed by a mortgagee to the mortgagor under the common law of negligence, was inconsistent with the rights and duties arising from these equitable principles. "If a mortgagee exercises his power of sale in good faith for the purpose of protecting his security, he is not liable to the mortgagor even though he might have obtained a higher price and even though the terms might be regarded as disadvantageous to the mortgagor."
The judge in the present case said a ship mortgageeís power of arrest was the necessary first step to enforcing his security by having the vessel sold by an Admiralty Court, and must be distinguished from the power of sale expressly granted by the terms of a mortgage. An Admiralty Court sale meant the value of the security was enhanced as the vessel was sold free of encumbrances.
A ship mortgagee would only be expected to release the vessel from arrest if he were offered security of equal value for paying off the loan. "He does not owe the mortgagor a general duty in negligence or in equity to take reasonable care in dealing with the ship... So long as the mortgagee acts in good faith for the purpose of obtaining repayment ... he can arrest the vessel notwithstanding such action might harm the interests of the mortgagor."
The judge dismissed the respondentís argument that such a duty of care existed where re-arrest in another jurisdiction would enhance the proceeds of sale, as this would be inconsistent with Lord Templemanís analysis of the duties of a mortgagee.
The respondents had also argued that summary judgment was inappropriate because a court could not be sure that the respondent had no real prospect of establishing at trial the existence of the duty claimed. That decision would depend on the facts and circumstances of the individual case, which could not be known before trial; in addition, the authorities recognised that there were circumstances where the mortgagee had to have regard to the fact that a short delay in selling might result in a higher price.
The judge held, however, that the precedents cited (Medforth v Blake  Ch 86; Standard Chartered Bank v Walker  1 WLR 1410; Meftah v Lloydís Bank  2 AER (Comm) 741) did not establish that, in analogous circumstances, a mortgagee had any duty beyond that of good faith in arresting a vessel for debt.
The judge concluded therefore thatthe claimant owed the respondent no duty of care in law, either in the timing of the arrest or in deciding whether to release the vessel at Panama. Even if there was a duty of care, the communications between the claimant and the borrowers before the arrest showed the action was reasonable. It followed that the respondents had no real prospect of establishing at trial that the duty had been breached.
These Case Notes have been prepared with care, but neither the Editor nor the International and other Contributors can guarantee that they are free from error, nor that they contain every pertinent point. Reliance should not therefore be placed upon them without independent verification. The Editor and the International and other Contributors disclaim all liability for any loss of whatsoever nature and howsoever arising as a result of others acting or refraining from acting in reliance on the contents of this website and the information to which it gives access. The Editor claims copyright in the content of the website.