World419-TK-01

Can the Terminal Operator arrest the vessel (M/V Red Room) in rem under Rule C to secure cleanup costs arising from the spill?

Please provide a few paragraphs to me in here, explaining your answer based on maritime law.

No, the Terminal Operator cannot arrest the vessel in rem under Rule C because it cannot establish a maritime lien against the vessel.

Under maritime law, an action in rem can be brought against a vessel to hold the vessel itself liable for the torts it has committed and for the contracts it has breached (see "Admiralty and Maritime Law, Robert Force (Fed. Jud. Ctr. 2004).pdf" at pages 38 to 39) using a maritime lien. Thus, the Terminal Operator's claim must rest upon its ability to establish a maritime lien either through: (1) damages to its property by the tortious actions of the M/V Red Room vessel, or (2) a contractual breach that gives rise to a maritime lien. 

The Terminal Operator has not suffered damages to its property, so a tortious claim against M/V Red Room cannot give rise to a maritime lien.

The Terminal Services Agreement is the contract that governs any contractual relationship between the Terminal Operator and M/V Red Room. The agreement is "nonmaritime" contract, meaning it cannot give rise to a maritime lien (Admiralty and Maritime Law, Robert Force (Fed. Jud. Ctr. 2004).pdf  at page 21: "contracts that obligate a person to provide services directly to a vessel may be maritime contracts as distinguished from ones in which a person merely obligates himself to procure another to provide services to a vessel" and page 166: "The distinction between maritime and nonmaritime contracts is important here because only maritime contracts may give rise to a maritime lien").

Therefore, the Terminal Operator cannot arrest the vessel in rem under Rule C because no maritime lien is possible.