• the protection of the title held by the registered owner, and
• the protection of the title and the preservation of priorities between persons
holding security interests over the vessel, such as mortgages.
26
The United Kingdom Merchant Shipping Act 1894 defined a ship according to
ownership rather than by registration, although it required that all British ships be
registered under the Act.
27 However the effect of the provision was to achieve
registration for all British owned ships, unless the vessel was owned by a corporation
whose principal domain was outside the British dominions.
28 This provision was
altered by the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 where it is provided that British character
can only be obtained upon registration.
29 This is repeated in the current legislation,
namely, the Merchant Shipping Act, 1995.
30
2.2 Types of Registries
2.2.1 The Traditional Closed Registry System
By giving a ship national status, a state acquires certain rights as well as responsibilities in relation to it and exercises over it, exclusive control. For example, the state
must ensure that its vessels adhere to any international maritime conventions to
which it is subject. This is considered to be best achieved where the ship owner is
subject to the laws of that particular state. Traditionally therefore, nationality was
granted only to ships that were owned by state nationals.
31 This is the foundation of
the closed registry system.
There are, however, degrees of flexibility in the closed registry system. For
example, in relation to ownership, a tightly closed registry system may regard a
national to be only an individual who is a citizen born within the particular state. In a
relatively flexible closed registry system, a national may be an individual who is
simply domiciled in or a permanent resident of that state. In relation to corporate
ownership of a vessel a closed registry system will likely require that the company be
incorporated within the state and its principal place of business be situated there.
32 A
26 Ibid.
27 Oteri case, supra, note 13 at p. 105.
28 Ready (1998), p. 6.
29 Ibid.
30 4 & 5 Eliz 2, 1995, c.21.
31 Mukherjee and Brownrigg (2013), pp. 204–205. See also Mukherjee (1993), p. 33.
32 In The Polzeath, [1916] P. 241, (CA), the ship in question was owned by a company incorporated
in the UK. The chairman of the Board of Directors who owned the majority shares in the company
resided in Hamburg and the company was controlled from there. The court held that “the principal
place of business [is] that place from where the effective control was maintained" and ruled that in
that case it was Hamburg, Germany and was therefore subject to forfeiture by the Crown. See also
The Rewia [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 325 per Leggatt L.J. See discussion in Hill (1995), pp. 4–5.
586
R. Mukherjee
• the protection of the title and the preservation of priorities between persons
holding security interests over the vessel, such as mortgages.
26
The United Kingdom Merchant Shipping Act 1894 defined a ship according to
ownership rather than by registration, although it required that all British ships be
registered under the Act.
27 However the effect of the provision was to achieve
registration for all British owned ships, unless the vessel was owned by a corporation
whose principal domain was outside the British dominions.
28 This provision was
altered by the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 where it is provided that British character
can only be obtained upon registration.
29 This is repeated in the current legislation,
namely, the Merchant Shipping Act, 1995.
30
2.2 Types of Registries
2.2.1 The Traditional Closed Registry System
By giving a ship national status, a state acquires certain rights as well as responsibilities in relation to it and exercises over it, exclusive control. For example, the state
must ensure that its vessels adhere to any international maritime conventions to
which it is subject. This is considered to be best achieved where the ship owner is
subject to the laws of that particular state. Traditionally therefore, nationality was
granted only to ships that were owned by state nationals.
31 This is the foundation of
the closed registry system.
There are, however, degrees of flexibility in the closed registry system. For
example, in relation to ownership, a tightly closed registry system may regard a
national to be only an individual who is a citizen born within the particular state. In a
relatively flexible closed registry system, a national may be an individual who is
simply domiciled in or a permanent resident of that state. In relation to corporate
ownership of a vessel a closed registry system will likely require that the company be
incorporated within the state and its principal place of business be situated there.
32 A
26 Ibid.
27 Oteri case, supra, note 13 at p. 105.
28 Ready (1998), p. 6.
29 Ibid.
30 4 & 5 Eliz 2, 1995, c.21.
31 Mukherjee and Brownrigg (2013), pp. 204–205. See also Mukherjee (1993), p. 33.
32 In The Polzeath, [1916] P. 241, (CA), the ship in question was owned by a company incorporated
in the UK. The chairman of the Board of Directors who owned the majority shares in the company
resided in Hamburg and the company was controlled from there. The court held that “the principal
place of business [is] that place from where the effective control was maintained" and ruled that in
that case it was Hamburg, Germany and was therefore subject to forfeiture by the Crown. See also
The Rewia [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 325 per Leggatt L.J. See discussion in Hill (1995), pp. 4–5.
586
R. Mukherjee