There are divergences between the statutory ‘‘veil piecing’’ under the ‘‘associated ship’’ arrest provisions of the South African Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983 and the South African common law ‘‘veil piercing’’ principles in relation to corporations generally. These are noted in the light of a proposal to extend the ‘‘associated ship’’ arrest provisions to other forms of property, or at least ‘‘maritime property’’ as defined in s 3(5) of the Act. The extension is proposed for the purpose primarily, if not solely, of achieving consistency in the treatment of all forms of, at least, maritime property. This article argues for circumspection in extending such provisions to other forms of property on the grounds that such extension would be at the cost of exacerbating inconsistencies between the statutory ‘‘veil piercing’’ under the Act and the common law ‘‘veil piercing’’ principles in relation to corporations generally, would be without the particular justification for the ‘‘associated ship’’ arrest provisions, and may be of limited practical value .

It is over 20 years since South Africa introduced its ‘‘associated ship’’ arrest provisions, in the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act of 1983 (‘‘the Act’’).1 The implementation of these, at the time, ‘‘novel, unusual and at times far-reaching provisions’’,2 earned South Africa a reputation in shipping circles as an ‘‘arrest friendly’’ jurisdiction.3 Since their

234