Wrongful Ship Arrest in Bangladesh (2026): Damages, Counter-Security, Caveats, Liens, Mortgages and Bunker Claims

Wrongful ship arrest Bangladesh: the 2026 position

Wrongful ship arrest Bangladesh owners complain about is rarely a matter of a rogue judge. It usually comes from a claimant who has pressed a maritime claim further than the Admiralty Court Act 2000 allows: a charterer's debt pursued against a ship the charterer never owned, a cargo claim brought by someone who never owned the cargo, or an arrest obtained without disclosing an arbitration clause. In January 2026 the High Court Division held one such arrest to have been "wrongfully issued" and released the ship without any security at all.[6]

This guide is written for the owner, P&I club or financier on the receiving end, and for the claimant who wants an arrest that survives challenge. It covers damages, counter-security, caveats, maritime liens and ranking, ship mortgage enforcement and bunker suppliers' claims. The statutory framework and release security are covered in companion TRW guides, linked where relevant.

Summary: Arrest in Bangladesh is a statutory remedy under section 4 of the Admiralty Court Act 2000. It is granted ex parte, without counter-security, and an owner can recover damages for a wrongful arrest only by proving bad faith or gross negligence under the Evangelismos test, which the High Court Division confirmed as good law in March 2025. The real defences are jurisdictional: no section 3(2) claim, no in rem route, no locus standi or a time-barred claim. Maritime liens are narrow, necessaries and bunkers carry none, and mortgages are enforced only through the court.

Key point: Damages for wrongful arrest are hard to win in Bangladesh, but vacating a wrongful arrest is not. In 2025 and 2026 the Admiralty Court vacated arrests founded on a sub-charterer's debt, a charterer-ordered bunker supply and an intermediary's cargo claim. An owner who attacks the in rem basis early can free the ship without posting a guarantee; one who posts security first may hand the claimant a secured position it was never entitled to.

At a glance

Swipe or scroll →

Table of Contents

Why wrongful ship arrest Bangladesh disputes start with jurisdiction

An arrest is only as sound as the suit behind it. The High Court Division sits as the Admiralty Court under section 3(1) of the Admiralty Court Act 2000, and its jurisdiction depends on two separate tests.[1] First, the claim must fall within one of the eighteen heads listed in section 3(2). Second, the claimant must show a route under section 4 that allows the suit to proceed in rem against the particular ship. Fail either test and the arrest falls with it. Our guide to the Admiralty Court Act Bangladesh explains the full claims list; this guide concentrates on what happens when the tests are pushed too far.

In personam and in rem

Section 4(1) allows every admiralty claim to proceed in personam, against the person liable, subject to the collision restrictions in section 5. An action in rem is different: the ship itself is the defendant, the plaint can describe it as "owner and parties interested" in the vessel, and arrest gives the court control of the asset as security for the claim.[1] Only the Admiralty Court can proceed in rem, and that is why claimants come to it.

The three in rem routes

Section 4(2) allows an action in rem against the ship concerned for ownership, co-ownership, mortgage and forfeiture claims. Section 4(3) allows one against a ship subject to a maritime lien or other charge. Section 4(4) allows one, for claims under clauses (d) to (q) of section 3(2), where the person who would be liable in personam was the owner, charterer or person in possession or control of the ship when the cause of action arose, and is the beneficial owner of the ship when the suit is filed.[1] Most applications to vacate an arrest are arguments about which route, if any, was open on the day the plaint was presented.

Action in rem, sister ships and beneficial ownership

The action in rem is the device that lets a claimant reach a foreign owner it cannot otherwise sue in Bangladesh. Section 3(5) extends the jurisdiction to every ship, Bangladeshi or foreign, wherever the owner resides, and to mortgages created under foreign law, whether registered or not.[1] The limits lie in section 4(4), which ties the in rem claim to the person liable. Our note on admiralty suits in Bangladesh sets out the statutory text.

Sister-ship arrest

Section 4(4) allows the claimant to proceed in rem not only against the ship concerned but against any other ship that the person liable beneficially owns when the suit is filed.[1] Practitioners confirm that a sister ship can be arrested in Bangladesh, but that a ship in associated ownership, held by a sister company rather than by the debtor itself, cannot.[4] Single-ship companies therefore remain an effective shield, unless the claimant can show that the registered owner is a nominee for the debtor.

Beneficial ownership and timing

Two dates matter: the date the cause of action arose and the date the suit is filed. In Island Oil v MT Mandala, the court described section 4(4) as a two-stage test and held that an action in rem may be brought only against a vessel beneficially owned by the same person who was liable when the debt arose. The tanker had been sold to a new owner in 2017, six years before the suit, and the arrest could not stand.[8]

Allegations of sham transfers

Claimants who find that the ship has changed hands often allege that the sale was a sham. The court will not act on the allegation alone. In MT Mandala the plea failed because no material was produced to support it, and the court noted the certificate of deletion from the former registry.[8] In March 2026, in a charterparty claim against M.V. Princess Jia Jia, the plaintiff alleged a sham transfer and renaming in January 2026, but the court released the ship on reduced security without deciding the point.[9]

Charterers' debts

The most common source of wrongful arrest is a debt owed by a charterer or sub-charterer. In Schuyler Trader a pool operator with claims against a sub-charterer arising from two unrelated vessels arrested bunkers aboard a Singapore-flag ship at Mongla; the arrest was vacated on 12 January 2025.[7]

Arrest procedure and security

A claimant files a verified plaint under section 6 and moves the arrest application on affidavit before the admiralty bench. The application is heard ex parte unless the owner has filed a caveat, and an order can usually be obtained within about 48 hours of receiving the documents and a legalised power of attorney.[1] [4] Our briefing on vessel arrest and release in Bangladesh covers the execution of the order through the Marshal, the port and customs.

The duty of disclosure

Because the owner is not heard, the claimant must put the material facts before the court. The duty is not absolute. In Trade Venture Investment v M.V. Phuc Hai Star, decided by the Appellate Division on 23 June 2011, non-disclosure of a foreign suit was held not fatal where no security had been furnished abroad, and the High Court Division applied that reasoning in MT Gala.[5] But in MV Telerig, failure to disclose a London arbitration clause was treated as a significant omission that counted against the claimant.[6]

How much security

The Act does not fix the amount. The court has traditionally expected the full claim, interest and costs, reduced where the owner shows the claim is overstated.[4] The March 2026 Princess Jia Jia order goes further. Relying on S. M. Monirul Islam v MV You Bang, 51 DLR (AD) 90, the court held that rules 23 and 31 of the Admiralty Rules 1912 do not limit its discretion to reduce or enhance security, and that security "is not to be fixed mechanically at the full amount claimed in the plaint".[9]

Proportionate security in practice

Against a claim of USD 2,775,136, which included a full refund of freight on a completed voyage, the court fixed security at USD 250,000, observing that "the just balance lies in moderation".[9] Proportionate security is a practical shield against wrongful ship arrest Bangladesh owners can invoke even when the arrest itself stands, provided the reduction application is backed by documents.

Forms of security

The standard form is a local bank guarantee in favour of the Marshal; a P&I club letter of undertaking is accepted only if the claimant agrees.[4] Our guide to ship release bank guarantees in Bangladesh covers wording and Bangladesh Bank rules.

Counter-security: when the claimant must pay in

In London or Singapore an arresting party may be asked to give an undertaking in damages or counter-security. Bangladesh does not ordinarily require it. Practitioners report that counter-security is not required when the court orders the arrest, and that the court does not treat wrongful arrest as a ground for ordering it.[4] That is one reason Bangladesh is regarded as a claimant-friendly arrest jurisdiction. The only routine protection is security for costs, which the court may order where all plaintiffs reside abroad without sufficient immovable property in Bangladesh.[4]

The MT Gala exception

MT Gala shows that the court can nonetheless impose counter-security as a condition of its release order. A Chinese buyer claimed USD 53,516,511.80 for non-delivery of about 99,380 tonnes of Omani crude and arrested the tanker at Chattogram in March 2022. On 25 August 2022 the court released the ship against a USD 10 million guarantee from the owner and required the plaintiff to provide USD 1 million of counter-security, covering three years' interest on the owner's guarantee.[5]

No further counter-security against a counterclaim

The owner later counterclaimed USD 14,264,419.30 for wrongful arrest and asked for a further USD 2.6 million by bank guarantee against that counterclaim. On 11 March 2025 the court refused, holding that the arrest was not wrongful.[5] Counter-security is won at the release stage, not later on the strength of a counterclaim.

Damages for wrongful ship arrest Bangladesh courts will award

There is no statute in Bangladesh providing for damages for wrongful arrest, and practitioners have long reported no established practice of awarding them.[4] The decision in MT Gala now supplies the governing test. Justice Zafar Ahmed held that ship arrest is a statutory right under section 4(4) of the Act and rules 4 and 5 of the Admiralty Rules 1912, and that the Privy Council's test in The Evangelismos (1858) "remains good law in our jurisdiction".[5]

The bad faith or gross negligence test

Under the Evangelismos test, an owner must show that the arrest was made with mala fides, meaning malice or bad faith, or with crassa negligentia, meaning gross negligence so serious that bad faith can be inferred. The test is applied to the circumstances at the time of arrest, not with hindsight. The court reviewed the English line of authority from The Evangelismos through The Kommunar (No 3) and The Alkyon, and a Bangladesh owner should expect the same strict reading.[5]

Losing the claim is not enough

An arrest is not wrongful merely because the claimant later fails on the merits. In MT Gala the owner relied on the plaintiff's failure to disclose that the Iranian authorities had seized the ship and sold the cargo. The court found that those matters did not go to the root of the case, that the Iranian proceeding was criminal and not initiated by the plaintiff, and held that "no wrongful arrest has occurred in the case".[5]

MV Telerig: a wrongful arrest finding

The January 2026 decision in MV Telerig is the clearest finding of wrongful ship arrest Bangladesh practice has produced. A time-charterer arrested the ship at Chattogram outer anchorage on 23 December 2025, claiming about USD 1,008,640 for non-delivery of steel billets. On 13 January 2026 Justice Sikder Mahmudur Razi held that the charterer had no locus standi to bring an in rem cargo claim, that no maritime claim or lien was shown against the registered owner, and that "the arrest order was wrongfully issued".[6]

What Telerig did and did not decide

The court vacated the warrant immediately and released the vessel without any security, linking the arrest to the Evangelismos principle on arrests with little legal basis.[6] It did not quantify damages, and a finding that an arrest was wrongfully issued is not itself a finding of bad faith or gross negligence. It is, however, powerful evidence for any counterclaim.

How an owner brings the claim

The practical vehicle is a counterclaim in the written statement in the same admiralty suit, as the owner did in MT Gala.[5] The owner must prove the claimant's state of mind or gross negligence at the time of arrest, and quantify its loss: off-hire, lost fixtures, port and agency costs, crew costs and the cost of security. Correspondence showing the claimant knew the ship had been sold, or that its debtor was only a charterer, is what moves a court from "unsuccessful" to "grossly negligent".

Defences to wrongful ship arrest Bangladesh owners can use

Because damages are hard to recover, an owner's real protection is speed. The aim is to have a bad arrest vacated before the ship loses its next fixture, and to avoid posting security that the claimant was never entitled to.

Recall and vacate the arrest

Where the claim falls outside section 3(2) or no section 4 route exists, the owner applies to recall and vacate the warrant. The court will release without security where the ship has no liability to the plaintiff, and practitioners report that such an application can be decided within three to four days.[4] It is the fastest cure for a wrongful ship arrest Bangladesh owners have, and Schuyler Trader and MV Telerig both ended this way.[6] [7]

Reject the plaint for limitation

The Admiralty Court applies the Limitation Act 1908 as the law of the forum. In MT Mandala the bunker supplier sued in 2023 for fuel delivered in 2017, and the court rejected the plaint because the three-year period had expired. It refused to extend time under section 13 for the owner's absence from Bangladesh, holding that "a person who was never in Bangladesh cannot be considered as having been absent", and directed the bank to return the guarantee. It added that "no plaint founded on vague, indefinite or omnibus assertions should be permitted to proceed".[8]

Arbitration clauses

Where the underlying contract provides for London or Singapore arbitration, the owner should raise the clause at once. Telerig shows that the court will treat non-disclosure of an arbitration clause as significant, and that it will not allow the admiralty process to be used to resolve what is in substance a dispute for another forum.[6] Our note on maritime arbitration in Bangladesh explains how security and arbitration interact.

Costs and compensatory costs

The court can award costs against the losing party, and section 35A of the Code of Civil Procedure allows compensatory costs where a claim is disallowed as false or vexatious.[3] The Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance 2025, in force from 8 May 2025, raised the ceiling from Tk 20,000 to Tk 50,000.[13] It is a token sum against a detained ship, but it marks the court's view of the claim.

Caveats against ship arrest

An owner who expects a claim, because a dispute is live or a supplier has threatened arrest, does not have to wait for the warrant. It can file a caveat in the Admiralty Court so that it is notified and heard before any arrest application is decided. Arrest applications are heard ex parte unless a caveat has been filed by the defendant.[4]

What a caveat achieves

A caveat serves two purposes. It helps prevent wrongful arrest by a fraudulent claimant, because the owner can put its documents before the judge at the first hearing. And it can reduce the security required for release, because the court hears both sides before fixing the figure.[4] A caveat does not prevent an arrest where the claimant makes out a proper case; it changes the hearing from one-sided to contested, and a caveat for one ship does not cover a sister ship arrested under section 4(4).[1]

The undertaking to give security

Under traditional admiralty practice, a caveat against arrest was accompanied by an undertaking to enter appearance and give security for the claim. Practitioners report that the Bangladesh court no longer requires an undertaking with the caveat or caution.[4] In practice, an owner that files a caveat should still be ready to offer security promptly. A caveat backed by an immediate offer of an acceptable bank guarantee or an agreed club letter of undertaking is the strongest position from which to resist arrest.

When to file

A caveat is worth filing when a ship with a known dispute is due at Chattogram, Mongla or Payra; when a supplier, charterer or cargo interest has threatened arrest in correspondence; or when a ship has been sold and the buyer fears claims against the former owner. The caveat should identify the ship by name and IMO number and name the owner, its local agent and counsel. It is the cheapest protection against wrongful ship arrest Bangladesh practice offers.

Owner's playbook: from threatened arrest to release

The sequence below is how owners and clubs manage the risk of wrongful ship arrest Bangladesh ports present, from first warning to return of the guarantee.

Swipe or scroll →

Maritime liens and statutory rights in rem

A maritime lien and a statutory right in rem are often confused, but they behave very differently. A maritime lien attaches to the ship when the claim arises and survives a change of ownership. A statutory right in rem under section 4(4) exists only if the person liable still beneficially owns the ship when the suit is filed.[1] [4] Our note on registered ship mortgages and maritime lien terminology explains the vocabulary.

Liens recognised in Bangladesh

Section 477 of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance 1983 gives seamen a lien on the ship for wages that cannot be forfeited by agreement, and section 478 gives the master a corresponding lien.[11] [4] No other statute creates maritime liens, but the court follows English law, under which salvage, damage done by a ship, bottomry and master's disbursements also carry a lien.[4]

No lien for necessaries or bunkers

Bangladesh law does not recognise a maritime lien for fuel or other necessaries. The High Court Division said so expressly in MT Mandala in January 2026, and in Schuyler Trader it was admitted that no maritime lien existed against the bunkers, consistent with the earlier decision in Marine Oil Broking v MV Daizu Maru, 55 DLR 471.[7] [8] Suppliers, repairers and chandlers must therefore rely on the statutory right in rem under section 4(4), with all its ownership conditions.

Foreign liens and the law of the forum

A supplier whose contract is governed by United States law, which recognises a lien for necessaries, cannot import that lien into Bangladesh. In MT Mandala the court rejected the argument and followed The Halcyon Isle: the law of the forum decides whether a lien exists and how it ranks.[8] Contract terms purporting to create a lien bind only the parties to them, as Schuyler Trader confirms.[7]

Crew wage claims

Section 7 of the Act fixes the court fee for wage claims at Tk 100, and in October 2025 the court decreed the wage claims of two engineers against MT Fadl-E-Rabbi, a tanker already sold at auction in another suit, with recovery from the sale proceeds and 10 per cent interest from decree.[1] [11]

Ranking: how the sale proceeds are divided

Where several claimants pursue one ship and the sale proceeds are insufficient, the order of payment matters more than the merits of any single claim. Section 4(7) of the Act lets the court, once it has ordered a sale, decide all questions of title to the proceeds and the priority of competing claims.[1]

Wages first

Section 479 of the 1983 Ordinance provides that the seaman's lien under section 477 has precedence over all other liens or charges on the ship, and the court quoted that rule in MT Fadl-E-Rabbi.[11] The master's lien ranks next. Below the statutory wage liens, the court applies the English law of priorities.[4]

Mortgages among themselves

Under section 40(4) of the 1983 Ordinance, competing registered mortgages on the same ship rank according to the date each was recorded in the register book, not the date of the instrument, and regardless of notice. Section 44 protects a registered mortgage against any later act of insolvency by the mortgagor.[2] On the English principles the court applies, maritime liens rank ahead of a registered mortgage, and the mortgage ahead of statutory rights in rem for necessaries.[4]

Pro rata among ordinary claimants

The Hearty Falcon execution shows how the court deals with a shortfall. Nine suits were filed against the ship, which was auctioned in 2013 for Tk 25.2 crore. In March 2025 the court applied an earlier direction for proportionate distribution "keeping in mind all the claims against the vessel", reduced a decree-holder's recovery accordingly and kept the execution alive pending two undecided suits.[12] Late claimants should expect to share, not to be paid in full.

Ship mortgage claims and ship finance disputes

Banks finance a large part of Bangladesh's coastal, lighterage and ocean-going fleet, and defaults are common. Mortgage enforcement is the one area where arrest is a right of the creditor rather than a test of the claim: section 4(2) allows an action in rem against the mortgaged ship for any claim in respect of a mortgage or charge.[1]

Creating the registered mortgage

Under section 40 of the 1983 Ordinance, a registered ship or a share in it may be made security for a loan in the prescribed form, and the mortgage is recorded in the register book at the ship's port of registry. Section 42 provides that the mortgagee is not deemed to be the owner merely because of the mortgage.[2] A foreign mortgage over a foreign-flag ship is also within the court's jurisdiction under section 3(5) of the Act, whether legal or equitable and whether registered or not.[1]

Enforcement only through the court

Section 43 is decisive. A mortgagee recovers the mortgage debt by proceedings in the High Court Division, which may direct the sale of the ship in execution of its decree, and the mortgagee may not sell or dispose of the ship merely by virtue of the mortgage.[2] A power of sale in the loan documents does not change that rule for a Bangladesh-registered ship.

Admiralty Court or Artha Rin Adalat

Borrowers often argue that a bank must sue in the money loan court. The High Court Division rejected that argument in Basic Bank v M.V. Crystal Sapphire on 26 February 2026, holding that section 5 of the Artha Rin Adalat Ain 2003 does not bar an admiralty suit, because the Admiralty Court's jurisdiction is defined by the nature of the asset. The court relied on First Security Islami Bank v MV Javed, 69 DLR 408, and Bank Asia v MT Atlanta, 25 BLC 677.[10]

The Crystal Sapphire decree

The bank had lent Tk 64.98 crore in 2012 against a registered mortgage recorded with the Mercantile Marine Department, a hypothecation charge registered with RJSC and a power of attorney to sell. The court decreed Tk 128.53 crore with 12 per cent interest from filing, recoverable from the sale proceeds of the ship, which had already been auctioned in another suit.[10] Our banking and finance litigation practice acts on both sides of these suits.

Documentation that survives enforcement

Crystal Sapphire was won on documents the defendants did not contest: sanction letters, the registered mortgage, the RJSC charge, the power of attorney, the legal notice and the loan statement.[10] Lenders should keep certified copies of each, record the mortgage promptly because priority runs from recording, and monitor other suits against the ship, since a sale in someone else's suit moves the contest to the proceeds.

Is there a Merchant Shipping Act 2020?

Draft Bangladesh Merchant Shipping Acts dated 2020 and 2023 have circulated, together with draft regulations, but neither has been enacted.[14] As at October 2026 the official Laws of Bangladesh database still carries the Merchant Shipping Ordinance 1983, and its mortgage provisions in sections 40 to 46 remain the operative law.[2] Finance documents and opinions that cite a "Merchant Shipping Act 2020" should be corrected.

Bunker suppliers' claims and sister-ship arrest

Bunker supply is a maritime claim under clause (l) of section 3(2), as goods or materials supplied for the operation or maintenance of a ship.[1] Whether it supports an arrest depends almost entirely on who ordered the fuel. Our guide to bunker supplier claims in Bangladesh covers contract terms and evidence; here we focus on the arrest.

Owner-ordered bunkers

Where the owner ordered the bunkers, section 4(4) allows an action in rem against the ship supplied, if the owner still beneficially owns it when the suit is filed, or against any other ship the owner then beneficially owns.[1] The sister-ship route is often the supplier's best chance, because the supplied ship may have been sold or may not call in Bangladesh.

Charterer-ordered bunkers

Most bunkers are ordered by time charterers. In MT Mandala the court found from the invoices and the record that the charterer, not the owner, had ordered the fuel, and held that the section 4(4) test was not met.[8] The court also cited Kyung Hae Maritime v M.V. BF Glory, 21 BLC (AD) 40, on the limits of in rem claims for charterer-ordered supplies.[8] A supplier to a charterer can arrest only a ship that the charterer itself beneficially owns.

Time bars

The Mandala supplier waited six years and lost on limitation, the court noting that it could have acted at other ports.[8] Suppliers should track the debtor's fleet and act on the first Bangladeshi call.

Off-spec fuel disputes

The reverse claim, by an owner against a supplier for off-specification fuel that damaged engines or caused delay, is usually a claim in personam. A supplier rarely owns a ship that can be arrested, so the owner sues on the contract in the forum the supply terms require, often arbitration abroad. The evidence is the retained samples, the bunker delivery note and laboratory testing, and it should be preserved before the fuel is consumed or de-bunkered.

Developments in 2025 and 2026

The Admiralty Court has published a run of reasoned orders since January 2025, and together they redraw the law on wrongful ship arrest Bangladesh claimants and owners rely on. Five stand out.

• The Evangelismos test confirmed (March 2025): MT Gala settles that damages for wrongful arrest require bad faith or gross negligence.[5]
• Bunker arrests restricted (January 2025 and January 2026): Schuyler Trader and MT Mandala close the routes for arresting bunkers and for suing in rem on charterer-ordered fuel.[7] [8]
• A wrongful arrest finding (January 2026): MV Telerig released a ship without security and held the arrest wrongfully issued.[6]
• Proportionate security (March 2026): the Princess Jia Jia order confirms that security need not equal the claim.[9]
• Banks' admiralty route confirmed (February 2026): Crystal Sapphire holds that the Artha Rin Adalat Ain 2003 does not oust the Admiralty Court.[10]

Legislative change has been slower. The Merchant Shipping Ordinance 1983 has not been replaced, and the Admiralty Rules 1912 still govern procedure.[2] [14] The Commercial Courts Act 2026 (Act No. 23 of 2026) does not touch arrest, which remains with the High Court Division. For context, see our guide to maritime law in Bangladesh.

Wrongful ship arrest Bangladesh: mistakes to avoid

The same errors recur on both sides of every wrongful ship arrest Bangladesh dispute we see.

• Claimants arresting for a charterer's debt: unless the charterer beneficially owns the ship, the arrest will be vacated.[8]
• Claimants hiding an arbitration clause: non-disclosure weighed heavily in Telerig.[6]
• Owners posting security before challenging jurisdiction: a strong objection should be argued first, with security offered only if it fails.
• Owners pleading wrongful arrest without evidence of bad faith: MT Gala shows that a failed or exaggerated claim is not enough.[5]
• Suppliers relying on a foreign lien: the law of the forum decides, and Bangladesh gives no lien for necessaries.[8]
• Lenders delaying mortgage registration: priority among mortgages runs from the date of recording.[2]

Whether you are an owner facing an arrest at Chattogram tonight or a claimant deciding whether to arrest, the analysis is the same: test the claim against sections 3 and 4 before anything else. TRW acts for owners, clubs, charterers, suppliers and lenders before the Admiralty Court. Contact TRW to discuss an urgent matter.

Frequently asked questions

Can a shipowner claim damages for wrongful arrest in Bangladesh?

Yes, but damages for wrongful ship arrest Bangladesh courts award require proof that the claimant acted in bad faith or with gross negligence at the time of arrest. The High Court Division confirmed in March 2025 that the Evangelismos test is good law in Bangladesh.[5]

Does a claimant have to give counter-security to arrest a ship?

Not ordinarily. Counter-security is not required at the arrest stage, but the court can impose it as a term of release, as it did in MT Gala, where the plaintiff provided USD 1 million.[4] [5]

Can an arrested ship be released without security?

Yes, if the court vacates the arrest because the claim falls outside its jurisdiction or no in rem route exists. In MV Telerig the court released the ship without any security in January 2026.[6]

What is a caveat against arrest?

A filing by an owner that ensures it is heard before an arrest application is decided. Without one, applications are heard ex parte. The court no longer requires an undertaking to give security with the caveat.[4]

Can a sister ship be arrested in Bangladesh?

Yes, under section 4(4) of the Admiralty Court Act 2000, if the person liable beneficially owns the sister ship when the suit is filed. A ship owned by an associated company cannot be arrested.[1] [4]

Which maritime liens does Bangladesh recognise?

The Merchant Shipping Ordinance 1983 gives liens for seamen's and masters' wages, and the court follows English law for others such as salvage and collision damage. There is no lien for bunkers or other necessaries.[4] [8]

How are competing claims against a sold ship ranked?

Seamen's wages rank first under section 479 of the 1983 Ordinance, then the master's lien, then other claims under English priority rules. Registered mortgages rank among themselves by date of recording.[2] [11]

Can a bank sell a mortgaged ship without going to court?

No. Section 43 of the 1983 Ordinance requires the mortgagee to recover through the High Court Division, which may order sale in execution; there is no right of private sale merely by virtue of the mortgage.[2]

Can a bunker supplier arrest a ship for fuel ordered by a charterer?

Generally no. The in rem claim lies only against a ship beneficially owned by the person liable, and the court has held there is no maritime lien for bunkers.[7] [8]

Has Bangladesh enacted a Merchant Shipping Act 2020?

No. Drafts dated 2020 and 2023 have circulated, but the Merchant Shipping Ordinance 1983 remains the operative law on registration, mortgages and liens.[2] [14]