Arresting a Ship in China: Maritime Claims, Security and Wrongful Arrest

Introduction

In a shipping dispute the vessel is usually the only asset the creditor can actually reach, and the fastest way to reach it is arrest. In China, arrest of a ship is governed not by the civil procedure law but by a dedicated statute: the Special Maritime Procedure Law of the PRC (中华人民共和国海事诉讼特别程序法), adopted on 25 December 1999 and effective since 1 July 2000. Its vessel-arrest provisions are still the original 1999 text — no amendment has passed in 2024–2026 — so the article numbers in this guide are the current ones. What matters for a claimant is three questions: is your claim one that justifies arrest, which ship can you arrest, and how much security will you have to put up.

The statutory basis

The Special Maritime Procedure Law sets out maritime claim preservation in Chapter 3. The general rules sit in Articles 12 to 20, and the rules on the arrest and judicial sale of ships sit in Articles 21 to 43. Counter-security and other security questions are dealt with in Chapter 6, Articles 73 to 79. In practice the provisions that decide most cases are Articles 21, 23, 16, 76, 17, 28 and 20 — the list of arrestable claims, the scope of arrestable ships, the security regime, the decision window, the arrest period and the consequences of a wrongful arrest.

Which claims justify an arrest

Article 21 contains a closed list of 22 maritime claims that support an arrest. The ones that matter most in practice are: loss of or damage to property caused by the operation of a ship; personal injury connected with ship operation; salvage; ship pollution damage; agreements for the use or hire of a ship; carriage of goods or passengers; loss of or damage to cargo; general average; towage; pilotage; supply of materials or services for the ship's operation, management, maintenance or repair; shipbuilding, repair, conversion or equipping; crew wages and other sums due to crew; disputes over ownership or possession of the ship; ship mortgage and similar rights; and disputes over a ship sale contract. Article 22 then closes the door to everything else: a ship may not be arrested except on a claim listed in Article 21 — the one exception being arrest to enforce a judgment, an arbitral award or another legal instrument.

Which ships can be arrested

Article 23 draws the boundary. The claimant may arrest the ship in respect of which the maritime claim arose (the "vessel concerned") in five situations — where the shipowner or bareboat charterer is liable for the claim and is the owner or bareboat charterer at the time of arrest; where the claim is secured by a mortgage over the ship; where the claim relates to ownership or possession; or where it is secured by a maritime lien. A claimant may also arrest a "sister ship" — any other ship owned, at the time of arrest, by the shipowner, bareboat charterer, or time or voyage charterer who is liable for the claim (except claims to ownership or possession). Ships engaged in military or government service cannot be arrested.

Security runs in both directions

Two security questions decide how an arrest plays out. First, under Article 16 the court may require the applicant to provide counter-security; it is discretionary, but if the court orders it and the applicant does not provide it, the application is rejected. Second, Article 76 fixes the amounts in each direction: the security the applicant is ordered to provide should be equivalent to the loss the respondent may suffer from the application, while the security the applicant demands from the respondent should be equivalent to the claim, but no more than the value of the preserved property. Getting the counter-security figure wrong cuts both ways — too low invites a dispute over adequacy, and under Article 78 a claimant who demands excessive security is liable for the respondent's resulting loss.

The 48-hour decision and the 30-day window

Speed is the point of arrest, and the law reflects it. Under Article 17 the maritime court must decide within 48 hours of accepting the application, and a preservation order is executed immediately; the parties may seek one reconsideration within five days, but reconsideration does not suspend execution. Article 28 then caps the arrest at 30 days. If the claimant files suit or starts arbitration within those 30 days — or applies for arrest in the course of proceedings — the 30-day limit falls away. The 30-day window is the discipline that forces a claimant to convert a pressure move into a real claim.

Wrongful arrest is a liability, not a formality

Article 20 is the provision owners reach for after the ship is released: a maritime claimant who applies for preservation wrongly must compensate the respondent or any interested party for the loss suffered. Wrongful arrest is assessed as a general tort claim, and the recoverable loss typically includes the cost of maintaining and watching the ship during the arrest, loss of use or off-hire, and the cost of the security the owner had to put up to secure release. The practical message is that arrest is a serious remedy: the claimant must have a genuine Article 21 claim and a realistic basis for the security demanded, or the arrest itself becomes a damages claim.

What the 2025 Maritime Code changes

The Maritime Code (中华人民共和国海商法) was revised on 28 October 2025 and takes effect on 1 May 2026, expanding from 15 chapters to 16 and renumbering many provisions. For ship arrest the effect is indirect: the Code is substantive law and does not contain an arrest chapter, so the Special Maritime Procedure Law's procedure and article numbers are unchanged. But the underlying maritime claims are now governed by the renumbered Code — a cargo claim, for example, now cites Articles 47, 52, 57, 88 and 284 for the period of responsibility, defences, package limitation, notice deadlines and the one-year time bar. When you arrest on a substantive claim, cite the current Code numbers, and check the current provisions on ship ownership, mortgage and maritime lien before relying on them.

Practical checklist

• Confirm the claim falls within Article 21 and is not excluded by Article 22.
• Identify the target vessel and confirm it is arrestable under Article 23 (no military or government ships, correct owner or bareboat charterer).
• Prepare counter-security and be ready for the Article 76 equivalence test in both directions.
• Act within the Article 17 48-hour decision window and be ready to file suit or start arbitration inside the Article 28 30-day window.
• Document the claim and the security calculation carefully to avoid an Article 20 wrongful-arrest exposure.
• Cite the 2025 Maritime Code article numbers for the substantive claim, not the pre-2026 numbers.