The uneasy state of the law concerning the arrest of ships by the Admiralty Court where the dispute is or may be referred to arbitration is well illustrated by The Andria 1 and The Tuyuti 2. Both cases were decided by the Court of Appeal and in both the judgment was given by Robert Goff, L.J.

In The Andria now renamed The Vasso, the vessel had carried a cargo of nitrates which, it was alleged, were damaged or contaminated during the voyage. Those interested in the cargo (the appellants) issued a writ in rem in the Admiralty Court within 12 months of discharge but this writ was not served because the vessel did not come within the jurisdiction. About two years after discharge the appellants and the owners of the vessel (the respondents) agreed, through their solicitors, to submit the dispute to arbitration. Shortly thereafter the respondents sold the vessel and, under her new ownership, she entered English waters. Accordingly, the appellants served the writ on the vessel and caused her to be arrested. After some negotiation, the respondents’ P. & I. Club gave the normal written undertaking in which they undertook “to pay to [the appellants] such sums as may be awarded in arbitration in London or on appeal therefrom or as may be agreed to be recoverable … up to a maximum of D.M.500,000”. The undertaking was given without prejudice to any application which might be made for a stay of the proceedings and/or for an order that the undertaking be released.

In their affidavit to lead the warrant of arrest the appellants had not mentioned the fact that they had agreed with the respondents to submit the dispute to arbitration. However, it was clear that at all material times thereafter they intended to arbitrate the dispute and, indeed, only five days after the P. & I. Club undertaking was given they served their Points of Claim in the arbitration. The respondents then applied to the Admiralty Court for an order setting aside the arrest and/or the letter of undertaking on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to arrest a vessel solely for the purpose of providing a party with security for a claim in an arbitration. This argument was accepted by Sheen, J., at first instance. He followed his own decision in The Maritime Trader 3, in which he had followed earlier decisions of Brandon, J. (as he then was) in