CML Doctoral Researcher Bulat Karimov’s article presents and analyses the statistics of ship arrest proceedings in Russia from 2020 to 2024. The author questions whether ship arrest has a legal nature distinct from other preliminary remedies and whether these peculiarities deserve special regulation in Russian law. The article concludes that only the maritime lien is unique and that the main issue with ship arrest in Russia lies in its unpredictability and uncertainty.

CML Director Professor Stephen Girvin gave a presentation at the CMI Rio Colloquium hosted by the Comité Maritime International (CMI) and the Brazilian Maritime Law Association (Associação Brasileira de Direito Marítimo – ABDM) in Rio de Janeiro from 12-15 May 2026.  The event brought together around 400 delegates from across the global maritime law community, providing the space, platform, and canvas for the drafting of laws, guidelines, and other documentation to assist legislators in various countries in navigating today’s complex maritime legal waters.

On 14 May 2026, Professor Stephen Girvin spoke at the Rio de Janeiro offices of the leading law firm Kincaid | Mendes Vianna Advogados at the invitation of Lucas Marques and Marcos Ferreira. He gave a seminar on 'Seaworthiness and Passage Planning' and highlighted two English cases in particular: Alize 1954 v Allianz Elementar Versicherungs AG (The CMA CGM Libra) [2020] UKSC 51 and Unity Ship Group SA v Euroins Insurance JSC (The Happy Aras) [2026] EWHC 7 (Admlty).

This paper explores whether a cyber-attack on a mobilised vessel, autonomous or otherwise, could be classified as a capture and seizure peril. Through doctrinal analysis, key case law, and market practice, it argues that cyber-attacks, notwithstanding their catastrophic consequences, fail to satisfy the physicality requirement inherent to capture and seizure in its current legal formulation. The paper concludes by highlighting the need for doctrinal and contractual evolution and by proposing the adoption of hybrid insurance policies to address emerging maritime risks.

On 6 May 2026, the Centre for Maritime Law (CML) at the National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law, hosted the CML Short Course on Shipping Law Update: Cases in 2025 at the M Hotel, Singapore. The seminar was delivered by Professor Stephen Girvin, MPA Professor of Maritime Law and Director of CML, before an audience of 50 legal practitioners and shipping professionals.

CML organised its third Port Side event for 2026 to mark the end of the academic year for students studying maritime law at NUS. The evening started with a talk by Mr Nicholas Fell (Executive Vice President, Corporate Services & General Counsel, BW Group). He shared his experience as an in-house maritime lawyer with the students.

This paper examines the implications of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) for carrier liability under existing international cargo regimes. As uncrewed and remotely operated cargo vessels become increasingly likely, it assesses whether the existing international sea cargo regimes can accommodate operations in which onboard crews are replaced by shore-based Remote Operations Centres (ROCs).

CML was delighted to have Mr Leong Kah Wah '90, Partner and Head of Shipping and International Trade at Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, give a guest lecture on arbitration and mediation in the context of shipping to the Admiralty Law & Practice class on 9 April 2026.

CML Director, MPA Professor of Law Stephen Girvin delivered a presentation titled, ‘Implied Indemnities in charterparties: certainty at last?’ on 24 March 2026 at the International Congress of Maritime Arbitrators (ICMA) XXIII Singapore Conference. The paper was part of the plenary session on Electronic Bills and Misdelivery Claims.

CML organised its second Port Side event for 2026 in collaboration with the Singapore Maritime Foundation (SMF) and the International Group (IG) of Protection and Indemnity (P&I) clubs.

CML Doctoral Researcher Bulat Karimov’s article examines the law and practice of arresting associated ships in South Africa, the US, England, Singapore and Australia. Particular focus is paid to the impropriety criterion, which is part of piercing the corporate veil but is irrelevant to the South African approach – the only country with separate associated ship provisions. It is concluded that the primary function of impropriety is to prevent overreaching, thereby subverting the idea of the separate legal personality of a shipowning company. The ‘objective’ and ‘reasonableness’ approaches are suggested as a middle ground to the problem discussed.

This paper argues that the current scope of English anti-suit injunctions risks illegitimate exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction and should be recalibrated through two underused lenses: (i) lessons from worldwide freezing injunctions and (ii) philosophical accounts of private international law. It distinguishes the anti-suit injunction’s ‘substantive scope’ (whether an equitable ground exists) from its ‘international scope’ (whether England has legitimate regulatory authority in the light of competing foreign interests).