The Beijing Convention and South Africa: A Question of Recognition, Not Reform

The Beijing Convention on the Judicial Sale of Ships entered into force on 17 February 2026.

Its objective is specific and limited: to ensure that a judicial sale of a ship conducted in one contracting State is recognised in other contracting States as conferring clean title, free of mortgages, liens and other encumbrances.

South Africa is not currently a signatory.

The issue, therefore, is not whether the Convention reforms our admiralty system, but whether it adds something to an already functional one.

South Africa’s Existing Position

South Africa’s Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983 (AJRA) already provides that a judicial sale transfers the vessel free of encumbrances. Section 9(3) states that a sale pursuant to a court order “shall not be subject to any mortgage, lien, hypothecation or any other charge of any nature whatsoever.”

Our courts have consistently treated judicial sale as a mechanism to maximise benefit to creditors within a concursus creditorum while conferring clean title on the purchaser.

In Hayfin Services LLP v The VLCC Advantage Sky (KZD A98/2019, 7 July 2020), the High Court reaffirmed that the purpose of a judicial sale is to obtain the greatest benefit for creditors as a whole. The Court ordered that the vessel be sold by public auction free of encumbrances, declining to retain an existing time charter in the conditions of sale. In doing so, the Court confirmed that a time charter is not equivalent to a lease for purposes of the huur gaat voor koop doctrine and that the statutory clean-sale requirement under s 9(3) represents the norm.

The position in South African law is therefore clear: a purchaser at a judicial sale acquires clean title.

What the Convention Adds

The Beijing Convention does not alter domestic judicial discretion, ranking of claims, or the substantive law governing maritime security interests. It does not dictate when a sale may be ordered or how proceeds are distributed.

Its function is narrower. It creates a framework under which other contracting States must recognise that a judicial sale conducted in accordance with the Convention has extinguished prior rights and encumbrances. It also facilitates deletion from the ship’s former registry and transfer to a new registry.

In essence, the Convention internationalises the effect of a clean-title sale.

Is There a Structural Gap?

South Africa’s judicial sales are well regarded. However, recognition abroad presently depends on the domestic law of the jurisdiction in which recognition is sought. That may introduce uncertainty in certain cases, particularly where vessels trade or register in multiple jurisdictions.

The Convention offers a harmonised recognition mechanism among contracting States. Whether that additional layer of certainty justifies legislative amendment is a policy decision rather than a corrective measure.

South Africa’s existing admiralty framework is neither deficient nor incompatible with the Convention. The question is not whether our system requires repair, but whether alignment with an emerging international recognition regime serves broader commercial interests.

Conclusion

The Beijing Convention does not reshape South Africa’s judicial sale regime. It does not alter clean-title principles, creditor ranking, or judicial discretion. Its purpose is to secure cross-border recognition of judicial sales validly conducted under domestic law.

For South Africa, the issue is therefore one of international coordination rather than domestic reform. Whether accession is desirable is ultimately a matter for legislative and commercial judgment.