Statutory harbour lien and anchorage dues retained priority over sale proceeds despite surrender of the vessel.

The amended scale of rates for anchorage dues was valid because it had been duly submitted, sanctioned and published, and anchorage charges were treated as a permissible service charge for providing harbour space. The port trust's statutory power to arrest and detain the vessel remained effective until payment, and its harbour lien was not extinguished merely by surrender of the vessel to the Sheriff. A statutory lien of this kind could not be displaced by court order without the authority's express or implied consent. The sale proceeds were therefore available in priority to satisfy the port trust's anchorage dues, and the competing claim for priority was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the port trust's anchorage dues, arising under the amended scale of rates and enforced by arrest of the vessel, ranked in priority to other claims against the sale proceeds, and whether surrender of the vessel to the Sheriff destroyed the port trust's lien.

Analysis: The amended scale of rates was duly submitted, sanctioned and published, and therefore operated validly. Anchorage fees were charges for making harbour space available for anchoring, which was a permissible service under the Act. The port trust had exercised its statutory power of arrest under Section 64 and was entitled to detain the vessel until its dues were paid. The Court held that a statutory lien of a harbour authority cannot be extinguished by court order unless the authority gives express or implied consent. By allowing the Sheriff to sell the vessel under Admiralty practice, the port trust did not forgo its lien or its right to have the sale proceeds applied in priority to its dues.

Conclusion: The port trust's claim for anchorage dues was entitled to priority over the other claims against the sale proceeds, and the motion seeking priority for the plaintiff's decree was rejected.

---