Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
DUBAI: OIL RIG NOT A VESSEL
The Boss Prithvi
The Dubai Court of Cassation has recently considered the perennial question of whether an oil rig is a vessel and held that it is not.1 An action was instituted in Dubai by four Indian financial institutions against the owners of the oil rig Boss Prithvi, which had been mortgaged to the plaintiffs. None of the parties had a place of business in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and proceedings were instituted in Dubai only because the rig was in Dubai waters. As a provisional measure, the Court of First Instance had ordered an arrest of the rig. In their suit, the plaintiffs prayed for judgment in the amounts due to them, confirmation of the mortgage on the rig and confirmation of the attachment (arrest) earlier ordered by the Court of First Instance. The defendant pleaded that the courts lacked jurisdiction, while the plaintiffs contended that the presence of the rig in the UAE brought the case within the ambit of Art. 21(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (Federal Law No. 11 of 1992), which confers jurisdiction on the courts to consider cases against foreigners who are not resident in the UAE if the suit concerns property in the UAE.
The Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal held that the Dubai courts lacked jurisdiction. On appeal, the Court of Cassation noted that the plaintiffs’ suit was essentially for the recovery of a loan and was not in respect of ownership of the rig, execution of a judgment on the rig or any other grounds under the Civil Procedure Code. The court held that the Dubai courts did not therefore have jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Code to consider the suit. However, the court held that, notwithstanding the lack of jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Code, the courts would have jurisdiction over a vessel under Art. 122 of the UAE Maritime Law (Federal Law No. 26 of 1981). This provides that the civil court within whose territorial jurisdiction an arrest of a vessel has been effected shall have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the subject-matter of the claim, in addition to those circum
482