Finders Keepers?
Acquiring Title to Abandoned Vessels in Admiralty Law

Finding an abandoned ship doesn’t automatically make it yours. This article explores the complex admiralty law principles a finder must navigate, from proving the original owner’s intent to abandon to satisfying the Crown’s rights (droits in Admiralty), to legally acquire title to a vessel.

The old adage “finders keepers” has a romantic appeal, especially when applied to the high seas and the discovery of lost vessels. However, in the structured world of Admiralty law, acquiring legal ownership of a vessel that appears lost or abandoned is a complex process. It involves navigating specific legal hurdles regarding jurisdiction, proving intent, and satisfying the unique rights of the Crown.

Typically, a finder will seek the aid of the court to declare his ownership of the vessel, and to be able to register the vessel under his name. This is a process that relies on several key legal principles.

Establishing Jurisdiction and Applicable Law

The Admiralty Court is granted jurisdiction to determine any claim to the possession or ownership of a ship under s 20(2)(a) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.

Once jurisdiction is established, the court must decide which country’s law to apply. For a question as to the ownership of a vessel:

·             The governing law is typically the “law of the flag“—that is, the law of the country where the vessel is registered.

·             However, if a vessel’s registration has lapsed or been withdrawn, it may be considered “technically flagless“.

·             In such cases, the court will instead apply the lex situs: the law of the place where the chattel (the vessel) is physically located. For a vessel moored in a British river, this would be English law.

The Two Hurdles: Abandonment and Acquisition

Simply finding a vessel is not enough; the claimant must prove two fundamental points: that the original owner truly abandoned it, and that the finder acquired it.

1.          Proving Abandonment (Dereliction)

Ownership is not easily lost. The court requires evidence that the previous owner divested themselves of the property with a “specific intention of desertion and relinquishment”.

This intention can be proven in two ways:

·       Expressly: The owner formally declares they are abandoning the vessel.

·       By Inference: More commonly, the court may infer the owner’s intent from their conduct (or lack thereof). A significant lapse of time during which the owner shows no interest in the property can evidence an intention to abandon. A failure to engage in legal proceedings concerning the vessel, such as a salvage claim, may be also considered a “significant indication” of abandonment.

2.          Acquiring Title

Once a chattel is legally abandoned, it becomes publici juris (of public right) and is available to be appropriated by the “first fortunate finder that will seize it to his own use”. The person who takes possession and demonstrates responsibility for the chattel can then assert a claim of ownership.

The Maritime Complication: Droits in Admiralty

In maritime law, there is a crucial extra step. Abandoned property, particularly wrecks or derelicts, found within UK territorial waters, does not automatically pass to the finder. These items are subject to the Crown’s rights, known as droits in Admiralty. The Crown, acting through the Receiver of Wreck, may have a superior claim to the vessel. Therefore, a finder must not only show the original owner abandoned the vessel but also that the Crown does not wish to assert its own rights. But if the property was found outside the UK’s territorial waters, the Crown’s right does not apply, as was held inThe Lusitania [1986] QB 384.

Principles in Practice: Smith v MV “Ross Revenge”

These principles were perfectly illustrated in the 2017 case concerning the MV Ross Revenge, a vessel once famous as the “pirate” radio station “Radio Caroline”.

·       The Background: The vessel was originally owned by a Panamanian company, Grothan Steemship Lines. In 1991, she grounded on the Goodwin Sands and was salved by the Dover Harbour Board. The claimant, Mr. Smith, had been a volunteer supporter. He negotiated and paid the £20,000 salvage claim from funds he raised.

·       The Claim: For the next 25 years, Smith acted as the vessel’s “manager and custodian”, raising over £400,000 for her maintenance and preservation. During this entire period, neither the original owner (Grothan) nor the vessel’s mortgagee made any contact or showed any interest, despite attempts to notify them of the new ownership claim. Smith sought a declaration that he was the legal owner and entitled to register the vessel.

The Court’s Ruling

The Admiralty Registrar, Jervis Kay QC, applied the principles step-by-step:

1.          Applicable Law: The vessel’s Panamanian registration had lapsed, rendering her “flagless”. Since she was located in the UK, English law (lex situs) applied.

2.          Abandonment: The court inferred that the original owners had abandoned the vessel. The “significant” evidence was their complete failure to take any part in the 1991 salvage claim. Their subsequent 25-year silence and failure to respond to the current claim strongly supported this inference.

3.          Acquisition and Droits in Admiralty: The vessel was in UK waters, meaning the Crown could have claimed it as a droit of Admiralty. However, the court confirmed that the Receiver of Wreck had expressed no interest in the vessel in 1991 and asserted no present rights on behalf of the Crown.

With the original owners’ rights extinguished by abandonment and the Crown asserting no claim, there was “nobody with a better title” than Mr. Smith. The court declared him the legal owner, rewarding his quarter-century of care and investment. The case stands as a clear, modern example that while “finders keepers” is not the law in the case of abandoned vessels in local waters, a path to ownership through dedication and due process does exist.