Service of Process to the Master under Maritime Law

Maritime commerce is a field with its own rules and dynamics, subject to legal regulations at both national and international levels. One of the most salient features of this field is that the parties are often located in different countries and vessels are underway. This situation creates serious difficulties particularly in legal notifications and service of process.

In cases where foreign-flagged vessels are present in Turkish ports, it is often observed that service to the shipowner or the charterer cannot be effected because there is no addressee in Turkey. At this point, paragraph three of Article 1104 of the Turkish Commercial Code comes into play. Relying on the master’s authority of representation, this provision envisages that actions and proceedings to be directed at the owner or the charterer may be effected upon the master by attribution, thereby providing a significant facilitation in practice.

In this article, within the framework of Article 1104/3 of the Turkish Commercial Code, we will examine in detail the institution of service upon the master in terms of its legal bases, conditions of application, consequences, and the issues encountered.

I. Legal Status and Representative Authority of the Master

Book Five of the Turkish Commercial Code, titled “Maritime Commerce,” regulates the legal status of the master in detail. Article 1061 of the TCC provides that the master is the superior of the crew and is responsible for the protection of the vessel and the cargo, as well as for order and safety at sea.

However, the master is not merely a technical manager of the vessel; in certain circumstances, he also has the authority to represent the shipowner or the charterer in a legal capacity. This authority arises particularly in the following situations:

• Carrying out necessary transactions while the vessel is on voyage,

• Conducting urgent legal procedures outside the vessel’s home port,

• Correspondence and representation before public authorities or third parties.

The master’s representative authority is a limited statutory authority. The master is not a general agent of the owner or the disponent owner; he may act only in the situations and within the limits set out in the TCC. An important consequence of this authority is that certain legal acts performed directly upon the master are deemed to have been performed upon the owner.

II. Legal Bases for Service upon the Master

Article 1104 of the Turkish Commercial Code, titled “Master – Representation,” regulates the transactions that the master may carry out on behalf of the owner or the charterer while the vessel is outside its home port.

The third paragraph of this article constitutes a special provision in relation to our topic:

Article 1104/3 TCC: “In respect of a foreign vessel, actions and proceedings brought against the owner or the charterer may be directed to the master, and such service shall be valid against them.”

This provision designates the master as the addressee for service in cases involving foreign-flagged vessels where the owner or charterer cannot be reached. The purpose of this regulation is to:

• Overcome the difficulties of service arising from the vessel being on voyage or located in a foreign country,

• Prevent disputes from being delayed,

• Ensure the effective conduct of proceedings concerning foreign vessels located in Turkish ports.

The key point here is that the master does not become a party to the action or the proceeding. Service is effected upon the master, but such service is deemed to have been made upon the owner or the charterer. Therefore, the master does not assume the position of a defendant or debtor in the case; he merely functions as the medium through which notification to the represented party is effected.

III. Circumstances in Which Service upon the Master May Be Made

Article 1104/3 of the Turkish Commercial Code is an exceptional provision, and the following conditions must be fulfilled cumulatively:

• The vessel must be foreign-flagged: The article expressly refers to a “foreign vessel.” Therefore, it does not apply to Turkish-flagged vessels.

• There must be an action or proceeding directed against the owner or charterer: The master may only be addressed on behalf of the owner or the charterer. Proceedings involving other crew members or third parties other than the owner are not covered.

• The vessel must be outside its home port: The structure of the article envisages that the master may exercise this authority while the vessel is outside its home port.

• Service must be directed to the master: The action or proceeding must be initiated against the master by attribution, and service must be effected upon the master. The legal consequences of the action or proceeding then arise for the owner.

If these conditions are not met, service upon the master is not deemed valid.

IV. Legal Effects and Consequences of Service upon the Master

The most significant legal effect of service upon the master is that it produces the same legal consequences as if the service had been made upon the owner or the charterer. In other words:

• Time limits for initiating actions, objections, or responses start running from the date of such service.

• In enforcement proceedings, it substitutes for the service of the payment order.

• When court judgments or provisional attachment orders are served upon the master, they take effect with respect to the owner.

The master is not the addressee of these proceedings; he merely functions as the medium through which service is deemed to have been effected upon the owner in law. This is particularly important in cases involving attachment, provisional attachment, or proceedings concerning maritime claims.

V. Practical Issues Encountered in Application

Service upon the master does not always operate smoothly in practice. Some of the frequently encountered issues include:

• Master’s refusal to accept service: In some cases, the master, often being a foreign national, may refuse to accept the service documents. In such situations, service must be effected in accordance with the provisions of the Notification Law and its regulations, and if necessary, through the local headman or the port authority.

• Identification of the master: The master’s name, surname, and position are determined based on the Transit Log records. Service effected without access to the Transit Log may raise validity issues.

• Subsequent challenges by the owner regarding representative authority: After service is effected, the owner may argue that the master lacked authority to represent them. However, since Article 1104/3 of the TCC is a clear statutory provision, such claims do not produce legal consequences.

Service upon the master is a practical and frequently utilized method in maritime law. Article 1104/3 of the Turkish Commercial Code prevents procedural deadlocks in cases involving foreign-flagged vessels by designating the master as the procedural addressee when the owner or charterer cannot be reached.

📌 Recommendations:

• The master’s identity must be clearly verified through the Transit Log before service.

• The service documents must be prepared and served in compliance with the Notification Law.

• This provision does not apply to Turkish-flagged vessels; in such cases, classical methods of service must be followed.

• When serving the master, the statement “on behalf of the owner via the master” must be expressly included in the statement of claim or the payment order.

✍️ In conclusion, service upon the master is both legally well-grounded and a practical tool that facilitates the efficient functioning of maritime commercial relations. However, strict adherence to procedural rules—especially accurate determination of the service address and identification of the master—is essential. Otherwise, procedural defects in service may render actions or proceedings formally flawed.