MAR5074 – Admiralty Law: Enforcement of Maritime Claims and Vessel Arrest

Coursework Assessment 1 (2026): Problem Question and Legal Opinion

Module and Assessment Overview

Module code: MAR5074
Module title: Admiralty Law: Enforcement of Maritime Claims and Vessel Arrest
Level: 7 (Masters)
Credit value: 20 credits
Academic year: 2025–2026
Indicative providers: Maritime law and shipping law LLM or MSc pathways at UK, UAE, and international maritime-focused universities.

Assessment: Coursework Assessment 1 – Problem Question and Written Legal Opinion
Weighting: 50 percent of module total
Submission format: Individual written legal opinion, 3,000–3,500 words (plus or minus 10 percent)
Submission mode: Online via the VLE (Word or PDF, Turnitin enabled)

Assessment Context

Admiralty jurisdiction and the enforcement of maritime claims remain central to modern shipping practice because shipowners, charterers, cargo interests and financiers rely on effective security mechanisms to manage risk and resolve disputes efficiently. Maritime liens, statutory rights in rem and vessel arrest procedures operate within national admiralty statutes and international conventions, yet their practical application varies between jurisdictions such as England and Wales, the United States, Australia and major trading states. This assessment requires you to apply advanced admiralty law principles to a realistic commercial scenario and to advise a maritime client on the strategic use of vessel arrest and related enforcement tools.

Coursework Brief

Task Description

Answer one integrated problem question by drafting a structured written legal opinion for a client involved in a multi-jurisdictional shipping dispute. You must:

• Identify and classify the relevant maritime claims, distinguishing between maritime liens and statutory rights in rem where applicable.

• Analyse the availability and strategic suitability of vessel arrest or attachment in at least two possible arrest jurisdictions, such as England and Wales, Australia, the UAE, Singapore, or another jurisdiction approved by your tutor.

• Evaluate key procedural steps, risks and defences associated with vessel arrest, including wrongful arrest exposure, counter-security and forum considerations.

• Provide a clear and reasoned recommendation to the client, supported by relevant case law, statutes and international conventions.

Scenario (2026 Version – Summary)

You act for a bunker supplier that has delivered fuel to the bulk carrier Pacific Venture under a contract governed by English law. The time charterer has failed to pay a substantial sum, and the vessel has since traded through several jurisdictions, including a recent call to a port in your chosen jurisdiction. There are competing claims from a mortgagee bank and a cargo interest alleging contamination of cargo at a previous port. The beneficial ownership structure involves a one-ship company and a parent group with several sister vessels.

Your supervising partner instructs you to prepare a written opinion advising on:

• whether your client holds a maritime lien or only a statutory right in rem in each candidate jurisdiction

• where and how to arrest the vessel or a sister ship to secure the claim most effectively

• the interaction between your client’s claim, the mortgagee’s position and the cargo interests’ potential actions

• the main procedural and commercial risks in seeking arrest, including security for wrongful arrest and the prospects of alternative security such as a P and I club letter of undertaking.

Required Structure

i. Introduction and issues – brief statement of assumed facts and identification of the core legal issues
ii. Nature of the claims – classification of the client’s claim and competing claims, including analysis of maritime lien versus statutory right in rem status by jurisdiction
iii. Jurisdictional analysis – comparison of at least two arrest forums, including jurisdictional basis, procedure, security and ranking of claims
iv. Strategic assessment – evaluation of arrest options, wrongful arrest risk, interaction with mortgages and cargo claims, and forum and timing considerations
v. Conclusion and advice – clear recommendation, proposed next steps and any alternative strategies such as negotiated security or coordinated dispute resolution
vi. References – cases, statutes, conventions and secondary sources in Harvard format or the citation style required by your programme

Specific Requirements

• Word count: 3,000–3,500 words (plus or minus 10 percent), excluding bibliography and, where applicable, footnotes

• Authority: A balanced mix of primary authorities and secondary commentary from 2018 to 2026

• Comparative element: At least one explicit comparison between two arrest regimes to demonstrate awareness of divergent enforcement frameworks

• Presentation: Clear headings, logical issue–rule–application–conclusion structure, formal legal writing and consistent citation practice

Learning Outcomes Assessed

• Demonstrate advanced knowledge of admiralty jurisdiction, maritime claims and vessel arrest mechanisms in key maritime jurisdictions

• Accurately analyse complex factual scenarios and classify maritime claims, including the scope and effect of maritime liens

• Critically evaluate enforcement strategies such as arrest, attachment and alternative security across different legal systems

• Produce clear, professional and client-focused written legal advice grounded in authority and commercial awareness

Marking Rubric

In practice, the effectiveness of vessel arrest as an enforcement mechanism depends not only on the formal availability of an action in rem, but also on how courts balance procedural safeguards against the need for swift security in maritime commerce. Jurisdictions with well-developed arrest procedures often emphasise proportionality and good faith, requiring claimants to demonstrate a prima facie case while remaining cautious about exposing defendants to undue commercial disruption. This judicial approach reinforces the importance of careful pre-arrest analysis, since an improvident arrest may weaken a claimant’s negotiating position rather than strengthen it, particularly where alternative security mechanisms are readily available (Friedman, 2025).

 References / Learning Resources (Harvard)

Foley, B. (2018) Arresting a vessel under the Admiralty Act 1988. Pacific Maritime Lawyers.

Low & Partners (2022) Admiralty law: vessel arrest and maritime claims (Part 3).

Marsden, R. and Gault, S. (2020) Collisions, Liens and Other Maritime Claims. 15th edn. London: Sweet and Maxwell.

Friedman, A. (2025) ‘Maritime liens and vessel arrest: evolving enforcement trends in international shipping’, Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, 56(2), pp. 201–244.

Shiplawmatters (2025) Maritime liens and vessel arrest: complete legal guide for enforcement.

Justia (2025) Admiralty and maritime law opinion summaries.