On the 10 July 2026, the First Hall of the Civil Court, delivered its judgement in the case of Manoel Island Yacht Yard Limited (C-48138) vs Dr Sarah Tua u l-PL Marie Claire Bartolo, who were appointed as curators to represent the yacht M/Y Bim with official number 16925 (hereinafter referred to as the "Yacht"). The Court considered the scope of its in rem jurisdiction against the Yacht since it had been abandoned for several years at the plaintiff's yacht yard.

Facts of the case

The plaintiff company operates a yacht yard and provides storage, maintenance and ancillary services to vessels in return for the payment of the applicable fees and charges. These services include the provision of storage facilities, ground rent and the supply of utilities such as water and electricity to vessels kept within its yard.

The plaintiff explained that the Yacht had remained within its yard for a considerable number of years, and during this period, continued to benefit from the facilities and services that were being provided by the plaintiff. Therefore, the Yacht was ultimately abandoned by its owners, leaving substantial amounts unpaid.

In view of this, the plaintiff instituted proceedings against the Yacht, seeking payment of the sum of thirty-nine thousand, six hundred and thirty-three euro and eighty-four cents (€39,633.84) in respect of outstanding storage fees, ground rent, and charges for the supply of water and electricity while the Yacht remained berthed within the plaintiff's yard, as established by the evidence demonstrated before the Court. The plaintiff further requested that the award include the costs associated with the warrant of arrest filed contemporaneously with the present application.

The Court appointed curators, Dr Sarah Tua and P.L. Marie Claire Bartolo (Curators) to represent the abandoned Yacht and they appeared on behalf of the Yacht. The Curators raised a preliminary plea contending that the Yacht was not the legitimate defendant to the plaintiff's claims. They argued that the Yacht should therefore be released from the observance of any judgment delivered in the proceedings.

The Courts Considerations

The court first considered the preliminary objection raised by the Curators and rejected this claim noting that this present case falls within the limits of Article 742B of the Code of Organization and Civil Procedure (Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta, hereinafter referred to as the "COCP"), which grants the Maltese courts the jurisdiction in rem against any ships or vessels in certain maritime claims.

742B. Save as otherwise expressly provided by law, the civil courts of Malta shall have jurisdiction in rem against ships or vessels in the following maritime claims:

The Court noted that the present case falls specifically within Article 742B(l) of the COCP, which states that Maltese courts have jurisdiction in rem against any ships in "any claims regarding costs or expenses relating to the raising , removal, recovery, destruction or the rendering harmless of a ship which is sunk, wrecked, stranded or abandoned, including anything that is or has been onboard such ship, and costs or expenses relating to the preservation of an abandoned ship and maintenance of her crew;".

This concept of in rem jurisdiction was central to the judgement. An in rem action is a proceeding brought against a property or subject matter to which the claim relates, rather than solely a person. In maritime claims, as can be seen from this case, this property is generally the vessel itself. Maltese law confers such an in rem jurisdiction against the vessel, where in this case the Yacht itself is the defendant and claims can be enforced against the vessel and its value. Therefore, the Court had in rem jurisdiction in respect of the plaintiff's claims concerning expenses relating to the maintenance of the abandoned Yacht.

When considering the facts of the case and the evidence presented before it, the Court was satisfied that the plaintiff had successfully established that the Yacht had been abandoned within the plaintiff's yard. In reaching this conclusion, the Court relied on a substantial body of evidence, including witness testimonies, invoices, statements of account, and a marine survey report confirming the Yacht's state of abandonment. Against this background, the Court held that the plaintiff's claim fell squarely within the scope of Article 742B(l) of the COCP.

Consequently, the Court rejected the preliminary objection and held that the Yacht was the proper defendant in these proceedings. Taking all the evidence together, including the documentary evidence and the unchallenged testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses, the Court found that the plaintiff's claim had been satisfactory proven and that there was no reason to doubt the amount claimed.

In delivering its judgment, the Court, for all the foregoing reasons:

1.     rejected all preliminary objections raised by the Curators; and

2.     upheld the plaintiff's claim, having found it to be successfully established through documentary and testimonial evidence, and consequently ordered the Yacht to pay the sum of thirty-nine thousand, six hundred and thirty-three euro and eighty-four cents (€39,633.84), together with costs and commercial interest.

Concluding remarks

This judgement is important as it provides a useful illustration of the practical operation of in rem jurisdiction in Malta and that  proceedings may be initiated directly against the vessels.. In doing so it confirms the effectiveness of in rem action in circumstances where a vessel has been abandoned and the owner is either unknown or not actively participating in the proceedings. The decision also reinforces the protection afforded to maritime service providers faced with vessels that have been abandoned while incurring expenses for storage and maintenance.

Simay Cilingir Associate at Ganado Advocates working within the firm's Shipping department.

Mattea Bianchi also contributed to this article. She is a legal intern within the Shipping department at Ganado Advocates, has also contributed to the drafting of this law report.

Disclaimer: Ganado Advocates is responsible for contributing this law report but was not in any way involved as legal advisor for the parties in the judgment being covered in this law report.