LIMITS

But a line has to be drawn somewhere with regard to foreign sovereign immunities, to prevent them being taken advantage of. So a distinction is drawn between activities undertaken using vessels which are commercial in nature, and those of a governmental or public nature. For yachts, ‘commercial’ means simply being chartered. While this tenet was enshrined in 1926 in the Brussels Convention on Immunity of State Owned Vessels and later in the 1972 European Convention on State Immunity and the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, these conventions must still have been enacted into particular countries’ domestic law to have any effect: which means that the commercial/non-commercial principle is not uniformly applied.

In the UK, the State Immunity Act 1978 strips immunity even where there is just an intention that the yacht be chartered – therefore encompassing charter positioning passages. In the US, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 1976 allows for state yachts to be seized not only when being used commercially but also to enforce a mortgage on the vessel. In France, the courts have held that a vessel may be seized simply when it is not performing a public act of state – which in reality is most of the time.

In most parts of the world, the privilege is what lawyers call ‘restrictive’ in nature – in other words, if you are seeking to rely on the privilege it’s up to you to demonstrate that your yacht is indeed a state yacht and the circumstances justify what you’re seeking to rely on.

ARREST

Being immune from seizure and delay is, almost literally, a ‘get out of jail free’ card for an owner who disputes a bill, for example. Seizing a yacht is a dramatic and effective method for recovering debts. There is nothing like it in land-based law. Normally, if you were to supply goods or services to a yacht, and weren’t paid, you could only sue the person or company with whom you agreed to deliver the supplies or do the work. Liens cut through contractual matrices.

Arrests are governed by the law of the jurisdiction in which the yacht is situated at the time. The yacht’s flag and the nationality of the individual or company seeking redress usually makes no difference. The arresting court can also become the trial court, making it possible to ‘forum shop’ for a country with favourable laws. Bringing an action against a ship is a remedy which has been around since ancient times. It exists because, traditionally, ships were owned by their captains and if anyone who had supplied goods or services to the ship was left unpaid, the captain could sail off, never to be seen again.

Some see arrest as a punishment in itself; it isn’t – it’s just a way of detaining the yacht in order to force the owner to provide financial security, which could be in the form of a cash deposit or bank guarantee. Then the yacht is free to leave. Contrary to popular belief, at no time is the yacht actually chained to the dock. The order is served on the yacht and if the captain attempts to leave he or she will be in contempt of court and criminally liable.

In the UK, a warrant of arrest will not be issued against a state yacht where, by any convention or treaty, the UK has undertaken to minimise the possibility of arrest until notice has been served on a consular officer of that state. Many countries have made similar ad hoc bilateral agreements not to arrest each other’s state vessels, in spite of any immunity laws allowing for arrest where they are being used commercially.

SALVAGE

If a state yacht is found to be in need of salvage assistance, the International Convention on Salvage 1989 will not apply if the vessel is entitled to immunity. This means that, unless the state owner consents, it may be impossible to arrest a salvaged yacht if financial security is wanted pending the litigation or arbitration of any salvage claim.

COLLISION

Where a state yacht has been sailed negligently, perhaps causing a collision, it remains possible to bring an action against the officer in charge at the time personally for negligence, just as it would be in any other situation: individuals cannot normally shelter from immunity afforded to the yacht.

CONTRACTS

So what can a supplier of goods and services do to ensure that the vital right to arrest is retained? Contracts should always include a ‘law and jurisdiction’ clause, although it is surprising how often this is omitted, even by sophisticated suppliers. It is a simple matter to include an extension to such a clause so that the yacht’s owning company is not entitled to claim any immunity in relation to itself (or any of its assets) under any law or in any jurisdiction in connection with any legal proceedings relating to the agreement. The owner should also be asked to irrevocably agree not to claim – and waive – such immunity. As it is always open to the owner to claim that national laws providing immunity will trump whatever is written in the contract, there is no guarantee that such a clause will be effective, but it is the most any supplier can realistically do.

ROYAL YACHTS

To be clear, not all yachts owned by royalty will be royal yachts in the context of international law. In those jurisdictions where the royal family is part and parcel of the state itself, it will usually be clear whether or not a royal yacht is a state yacht. The situation becomes less lucid where the royal family has a purely symbolic role: some royal households, while subject to widespread popular support and approval, are in fact constitutionally separate from the states they ‘reign’.

COMPANY OWNED

Further, some state yachts are owned by private owning companies, perhaps based in popular offshore jurisdictions, usually just to ring-fence the yacht as a source of potential legal liability. Where this is the case, the legal owner will be the owning company, not the royal personality or state, so any immunity would fall away. Given this, it would be preferable for state yachts which are to be chartered to be owned within the traditional company owning structure. When ownership is through such a company, the normal rules regarding whether it is possible to view the individual ‘beneficial’ owner as the actual legal owner will apply. This is known as ‘lifting the corporate veil’. It is usually only possible to reveal the beneficial owner where there has been tax evasion or an intent to defraud creditors – which is hardly likely in the case of state yachts.

CONCLUSION

While it is worth bearing in mind the immunity that state yachts enjoy, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that their owners are more likely to remain solvent, and will certainly behave after an incident in a manner which could be described, quite literally, as diplomatic.