Turkish shipyard refusing to release your vessel because of unpaid or disputed repair invoices? Learn about shipyard retention rights, maritime claims, ship arrest, security, urgent vessel release and compensation options for foreign shipowners in Turkey.

A foreign-flagged vessel enters a Turkish shipyard for maintenance, dry-docking, engine overhaul or emergency repairs. The work is completed—or the shipowner believes it should be completed—but the yard refuses to allow the vessel to depart.

The shipyard may claim unpaid repair invoices, additional work, variation costs, dry-dock expenses, storage charges or other outstanding amounts. The shipowner may respond that the invoice is inflated, the additional work was never approved, repairs are defective or the yard itself caused serious delay.

Meanwhile, the vessel remains commercially immobilized.

For a foreign shipowner, this can become an emergency. A vessel earning tens of thousands of dollars per day may miss its next charter, incur continuing crew and insurance costs and face claims from charterers or cargo interests.

The immediate legal questions are therefore:

Can a Turkish shipyard legally prevent the vessel from leaving? Can the owner provide security and obtain release? Can the yard arrest the ship? Can the owner challenge an excessive invoice without leaving the vessel detained for months? Can damages be claimed for wrongful detention?

The answers depend on the repair contract, nature of the yard’s claim, applicable Turkish maritime and obligations law, and whether a judicial arrest or other court measure exists.

First Question: Why Is the Vessel Being Held?

Before taking legal action, determine the precise legal basis relied upon by the shipyard.

A foreign owner should request written confirmation identifying the alleged debt, invoice numbers, contractual clauses relied upon and legal basis for preventing departure.

This distinction matters because a yard saying “we will not release the vessel” is not necessarily the same thing as a Turkish court ordering ship arrest.

The legal remedies can be very different.

Ship Repair Claims Are Maritime Claims in Turkey

Under Article 1352 of the Turkish Commercial Code (“TCC”), claims arising from the construction, reconstruction, repair, alteration or equipping of a vessel qualify as maritime claims.

This is important because Turkish maritime law provides a special arrest framework for maritime claims.

Accordingly, an unpaid Turkish shipyard may potentially seek judicial security against the vessel.

However, having a maritime claim does not automatically give the yard unlimited authority to immobilize the vessel indefinitely.

The procedural basis of the detention must be identified.

Is There a Court Arrest Order?

This should be checked immediately.

Ask:

Has a Turkish court issued an arrest order?

Has the decision been served or implemented?

Which court issued it?

What amount is secured?

What claim supports the arrest?

If a judicial arrest exists, simply instructing the master to sail can create serious legal problems.

The owner should obtain the court file and challenge or discharge the arrest through the appropriate procedure.

Shipyard Retention Rights

A separate question is whether the shipyard asserts a contractual or statutory right to retain possession of the vessel until its repair receivable is paid or secured.

This requires analysis of both the repair agreement and applicable Turkish private law.

The owner should not assume that every outstanding invoice automatically authorizes indefinite physical detention.

Equally, the owner should not assume that the yard has no security rights simply because the vessel belongs to a foreign company.

Repair Contract Comes First

The complete repair agreement should be reviewed immediately.

Important provisions include:

1. Scope of work.
2. Payment schedule.
3. Variation/change-order procedure.
4. Final invoice procedure.
5. Owner’s right to dispute invoices.
6. Shipyard lien or retention clause.
7. Security provisions.
8. Warranty obligations.
9. Liability for delay.
10. Governing law and dispute-resolution clause.

Many emergencies that appear to concern maritime law ultimately depend heavily on a few paragraphs in the signed repair contract.

Disputed Repair Invoice

Suppose the original repair contract is EUR 800,000.

During dry-docking, the yard performs additional steel work and issues a final invoice for EUR 1.4 million.

The owner accepts EUR 950,000 but disputes the remaining EUR 450,000.

The yard refuses to release the vessel until the entire invoice is paid.

The owner should immediately separate the undisputed debt from the disputed debt and identify whether the additional works were properly authorized.

Unauthorized Additional Work

Variation disputes are extremely common in ship repairs.

A superintendent may verbally approve urgent work.

The yard may later argue that this authorized substantial additional costs.

The owner may say that only technical inspection—not the full repair—was approved.

Relevant evidence includes work orders, daily reports, superintendent emails, signed variation sheets, WhatsApp correspondence and class requirements.

The person who had authority to approve additional expenditure should also be identified.

Can the Owner Pay the Undisputed Amount?

Often this should be considered immediately.

If EUR 300,000 is genuinely due but EUR 200,000 is disputed, withholding the entire EUR 500,000 can weaken the owner’s commercial position.

Payment of the undisputed amount, combined with an express reservation concerning the balance, may narrow the dispute.

Whether this affects the yard’s asserted security rights depends on the circumstances.

Security Instead of Payment

For a commercially valuable vessel, providing security may be far less expensive than leaving the ship immobilized while the invoice dispute is litigated.

Potential security arrangements can include a bank guarantee, cash security, P&I Club letter of undertaking where acceptable, or another negotiated form of security.

The objective is straightforward:

release the vessel now and argue about the money later.

Whether the yard is legally required to accept a particular security instrument is a separate question.

Bank Guarantee

A bank guarantee can sometimes resolve the deadlock quickly.

The guarantee should be carefully drafted.

The owner should avoid wording that effectively admits liability for the disputed invoice.

The document should secure the disputed amount without unnecessarily prejudicing the owner’s defenses in later litigation or arbitration.

P&I Club Letter of Undertaking

Depending on the nature of the dispute and willingness of the parties, a P&I Club LOU may sometimes be proposed.

However, repair invoice disputes are not automatically treated in the same way as traditional collision or cargo-security situations.

Acceptance depends on the yard, club involvement and contractual circumstances.

Can the Yard Arrest the Vessel?

Potentially.

Because ship repair claims are maritime claims under TCC Article 1352, a Turkish shipyard may seek arrest of the vessel where the statutory requirements are satisfied.

Ship arrest is a judicial precautionary measure.

It should therefore be distinguished from a yard merely physically refusing to allow the vessel to depart.

Ship Arrest Under Turkish Law

Turkey’s ship-arrest regime is principally contained in Articles 1352 and following of the Turkish Commercial Code.

A claimant generally needs to establish a maritime claim and satisfy the procedural requirements for precautionary arrest.

The court does not finally determine the entire repair dispute at the arrest stage.

The purpose is generally to secure the maritime claim pending resolution of the merits.

Foreign-Flagged Ships Can Be Arrested

The fact that the vessel is registered in another country does not by itself prevent arrest in Turkey.

Foreign vessels calling at or located within Turkish jurisdiction may become subject to Turkish maritime arrest procedures where the statutory requirements are satisfied.

This makes shipyard payment disputes particularly sensitive for foreign owners.

Counter-Security by the Shipyard

A party requesting ship arrest in Turkey may be required to provide security under the statutory arrest framework.

The purpose is to protect against losses that may result from an unjustified arrest.

The foreign owner should verify whether the required security was properly provided and whether procedural conditions were satisfied.

How Can the Owner Release an Arrested Vessel?

Where a valid judicial arrest has been imposed, the owner may seek release by providing sufficient security under the applicable Turkish maritime procedure.

The precise amount and form of security should be determined from the court decision and statutory framework.

This can be commercially preferable to keeping the vessel idle while the underlying dispute continues.

Release Does Not Mean Admitting the Debt

This distinction is extremely important.

Providing security to obtain release of an arrested vessel does not necessarily mean that the owner accepts the shipyard’s substantive claim.

The owner may continue disputing:

the repair price,

variation charges,

defective work,

delay,

set-off claims,

and damages.

Security and merits should be treated separately.

Owner Has a Counterclaim Against the Yard

Many shipyard disputes involve claims in both directions.

The yard says:

“You owe EUR 700,000.”

The owner says:

“Your defective repairs and 25-day delay caused EUR 1.2 million in losses.”

The owner’s counterclaim can materially affect the economic dispute.

However, the existence of a damages claim does not automatically cancel the yard’s invoice for arrest or security purposes.

Set-off requirements and contractual provisions must be examined carefully.

Defective Repairs

Suppose the owner refuses final payment because the repaired engine repeatedly overheats.

The yard nevertheless demands full payment and refuses release.

The owner should immediately obtain independent technical evidence.

Relevant evidence can include:

marine survey reports,

class records,

engine data,

photographs,

test results,

and sea-trial reports.

A vague statement that “the repairs are bad” will carry far less weight than an independent engineering report identifying the defect.

Vessel Not Seaworthy After Repair

An owner may also refuse acceptance because the vessel is not technically ready for service.

This should be distinguished from a simple payment dispute.

If class approval has not been obtained or critical machinery remains defective, the owner should document why contractual completion has not occurred.

The contractual definition of “completion” or “redelivery” can become decisive.

Yard Delayed Redelivery

A shipyard may claim unpaid invoices while the owner alleges substantial delay damages.

For example, the yard is 30 days late and the owner loses a charter worth USD 35,000 per day.

The owner may therefore claim more against the yard than the yard claims in unpaid repairs.

Preserve the repair schedule, daily progress reports, correspondence and charter documentation.

Loss of Hire

Every unnecessary detention day can increase the owner’s damages.

Potential losses may include lost charter hire, crew costs, insurance expenses, bunkers, port-related expenses and cancellation liabilities.

However, recoverability depends on the repair contract, causation, foreseeability and any contractual limitation clauses.

Wrongful Detention by the Yard

If the yard has no valid contractual or statutory basis to retain the vessel and no judicial arrest order exists, the owner may consider urgent legal remedies seeking release.

The precise remedy depends on the factual and contractual basis of the detention.

The owner should avoid self-help measures that could create safety, port or criminal complications.

Do Not Attempt to Sail Secretly

A master should not simply attempt to leave the yard without confirming the vessel’s legal and port status.

There may be a judicial arrest, harbour-master restriction, customs issue, unpaid port obligation or safety prohibition.

Turkish counsel should verify whether any official restriction prevents departure.

Harbour Master Restrictions

Sometimes the shipyard is not actually the legal reason the vessel cannot sail.

The vessel may lack departure clearance because of:

safety deficiencies,

classification problems,

port formalities,

customs requirements,

or an official judicial measure.

The owner should determine which authority, if any, is blocking departure.

Customs Issues

Foreign vessels undergoing extensive repair or conversion can also encounter customs-related issues concerning imported spare parts, temporary admission or equipment.

A customs hold should not be confused with a private repair-yard dispute.

Different legal remedies apply.

Evidence Preservation Before Vessel Leaves

Ironically, the owner’s desire for immediate release can create an evidence problem.

Once the vessel leaves Turkey, proving defective work may become harder.

Before departure, the owner should consider obtaining an independent survey and preserving photographs, machinery data, class reports and samples.

Where necessary, judicial evidence-preservation procedures may also be evaluated.

Judicial Determination of Evidence

Technical ship repair disputes can change rapidly because defective parts may need to be removed or replaced.

Turkish procedural mechanisms for preserving evidence can therefore be particularly useful.

An expert inspection before the vessel leaves the yard may later establish the condition of the work at the relevant time.

Shipyard Prevents Surveyor Access

If the yard refuses to permit the owner’s independent surveyor to inspect disputed repairs, this should be documented immediately.

The owner may need to consider judicial evidence-preservation measures.

Access disputes should not be allowed to destroy critical evidence.

Arrest Amount Is Excessive

The owner should compare the amount secured by the arrest with the underlying invoices.

If the yard claims EUR 400,000 but attempts to secure substantially more without a proper legal basis, the scope of the measure may need to be challenged.

Interest and certain recoverable expenses can also affect the security calculation.

Multiple Shipyard Invoices

Shipyards sometimes combine old and new debts.

A vessel may be held for:

current repair work,

earlier unpaid repairs,

services supplied to another vessel,

or debts allegedly owed by an affiliated company.

The owner should require the yard to identify exactly which debt supports its claimed security against the particular vessel.

Corporate group relationships should not be assumed to create liability automatically.

Sister Company Debt

Suppose Vessel A belongs to Company A.

Vessel B belongs to Company B.

Both companies are within the same shipping group.

A Turkish yard has an unpaid invoice against Company B but attempts to hold Vessel A.

Common ownership at group level does not automatically mean the companies are legally identical.

Registered ownership and contractual debtor identity should be verified immediately.

Vessel Ownership Is Critical

Shipping groups frequently use single-purpose companies.

The commercial manager, beneficial owner or brand may be the same, while each vessel is registered to a separate legal entity.

The yard’s claim must therefore be matched carefully with the debtor and vessel.

This can be decisive in arrest proceedings.

Bareboat Charter Situation

The vessel may be owned by one company but operated under a bareboat charter by another.

If the repair contract was signed by the charterer, special questions arise concerning whether the ship itself can be arrested for that debt.

Turkish statutory ship-arrest requirements must be examined carefully.

Repair Contract Signed by Technical Manager

Another common issue is authority.

A technical manager may order repairs on behalf of the owner.

The owner later argues that the manager exceeded its authority.

The yard argues that it reasonably relied on the manager’s instructions.

The management agreement, power of attorney and communications should therefore be examined.

Arbitration Clause

International repair agreements often contain arbitration clauses.

The underlying invoice and defective-work dispute may therefore need to be resolved in arbitration.

However, the vessel is physically located in Turkey.

Urgent Turkish provisional measures and vessel-release procedures may still become relevant depending on the applicable legal framework.

Turkish Courts and Foreign Arbitration

A foreign arbitration agreement does not necessarily make Turkish courts irrelevant.

Where a vessel located in Turkey is subject to a maritime security measure, Turkish procedural law may become important even though the merits are determined elsewhere.

Foreign owners should therefore coordinate Turkish maritime counsel with arbitration counsel from the beginning.

Foreign Court Clause

The contract may instead designate English courts or another foreign jurisdiction.

Again, this does not mean the owner should wait for years for a foreign judgment while the vessel remains immobilized.

Urgent Turkish remedies concerning the vessel and security should be analyzed separately.

Settlement Without Losing Rights

Commercial settlement is often sensible where daily vessel losses are substantial.

But settlement documentation should preserve the owner’s position.

For example, payment can potentially be made expressly under protest and without admission of liability, depending on the circumstances.

The wording matters.

Payment Under Protest

Suppose the disputed amount is USD 150,000 while the vessel loses USD 40,000 each day.

From a commercial perspective, paying and subsequently pursuing recovery may sometimes be preferable to leaving the vessel detained for another week.

But the owner should obtain legal advice before payment so that its reservation of rights is documented properly.

Bank Payment Does Not End Defect Claim

Even where the owner pays the yard to obtain immediate release, it may potentially retain separate claims concerning defective work, overcharging or delay depending on the settlement wording and applicable law.

Avoid signing broad final releases unless the consequences are fully understood.

Release Agreement

A negotiated release agreement should address:

the amount paid,

security provided,

vessel release deadline,

reservation of rights,

forum for the underlying dispute,

and treatment of existing claims.

If the yard agrees to release the vessel, the operational steps should also be coordinated with the harbour master and port authorities.

Wrongful Arrest Damages

If a shipyard obtains an unjustified arrest, the owner may potentially seek compensation depending on the circumstances and applicable legal requirements.

Evidence of detention losses should therefore be preserved from the first day.

Keep records of:

lost fixtures,

daily hire,

crew expenses,

additional port expenses,

and other direct consequences.

Owner’s Duty to Mitigate

Even where the yard is legally wrong, the owner should take reasonable steps to limit continuing losses.

If commercially reasonable security could release a vessel worth USD 30,000 per day, refusing all security solely to accumulate a larger damages claim may create difficulties.

Mitigation decisions should therefore be documented.

Shipyard Insolvency Risk

If the owner has a substantial counterclaim against a financially distressed yard, recovery risk becomes relevant.

The owner should investigate whether the yard has insurance, assets and pending financial difficulties.

A successful judgment against an insolvent yard may have limited commercial value.

Hull & Machinery Insurer

Where the underlying dispute concerns physical damage or defective repair, the owner’s hull and machinery insurer should be notified.

The insurer may arrange technical experts and preserve subrogation rights.

Do not sign a settlement that prejudices insurer recovery without consultation.

Practical Example: Disputed EUR 500,000 Invoice

A foreign tanker completes repairs at a Turkish yard.

The yard claims EUR 1.2 million.

The owner accepts EUR 700,000 but disputes EUR 500,000 of unauthorized additional work.

The yard refuses release.

The owner should pay or tender any genuinely undisputed contractual amount where appropriate, demand the basis of the disputed charges, investigate whether judicial arrest exists and consider security for the disputed amount to obtain immediate release.

The invoice dispute can then continue separately.

Practical Example: Yard Claims EUR 300,000 but Owner Claims EUR 800,000

The yard completes repairs 25 days late.

It claims EUR 300,000 final payment.

The owner alleges USD-equivalent losses exceeding EUR 800,000 because a confirmed charter was cancelled.

The owner should preserve the charterparty, cancellation evidence, repair schedule and daily progress reports.

Whether the owner’s claim can be set off against the yard’s invoice requires legal analysis rather than unilateral assumption.

Practical Example: Repair Defect Prevents Acceptance

A vessel’s main engine fails during testing after overhaul.

The yard says repairs are complete and demands final payment.

The owner refuses acceptance.

An independent survey identifies incorrect assembly.

The dispute is not simply about payment. The owner should document whether contractual completion has occurred and whether the yard must remedy the defective work before final payment becomes due.

Practical Example: Judicial Arrest

A Turkish shipyard obtains an arrest order for an unpaid USD 600,000 repair invoice.

The foreign owner has a charter beginning within four days.

Rather than allowing the vessel to remain idle during months of litigation, the owner may consider providing court-approved security to obtain release while contesting the repair claim separately.

First 24 Hours When a Turkish Shipyard Refuses Vessel Release

The foreign shipowner should immediately obtain the repair contract, complete invoices, change orders, payment records, superintendent correspondence and technical reports.

Turkish counsel should determine whether any judicial arrest, harbour-master restriction or other official departure prohibition exists.

The yard should be asked to identify its legal basis for detention in writing.

The owner should calculate the undisputed and disputed portions of the invoice separately.

If vessel earnings are substantial, security options should be evaluated immediately.

At the same time, evidence concerning defective repairs, delay and owner counterclaims should be preserved before the vessel leaves Turkey.

The goal is generally:

release the vessel as quickly as legally possible while preserving the owner’s right to fight the underlying claim.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a Turkish shipyard legally refuse to release a foreign vessel?

Potentially, depending on contractual rights, applicable statutory rights and any judicial measures. The exact legal basis must be identified before determining whether detention is lawful.

Are ship repair invoices maritime claims in Turkey?

Yes. Claims arising from construction, reconstruction, repair, alteration or equipping of a vessel are included among maritime claims under TCC Article 1352.

Can a Turkish shipyard arrest a foreign vessel?

Potentially yes, where the shipyard has a qualifying maritime claim and the statutory requirements for ship arrest are satisfied.

Can the owner release the vessel by providing security?

Potentially. Where a judicial arrest exists, Turkish maritime procedure provides mechanisms for release against sufficient security subject to the applicable requirements.

Does providing security mean admitting the shipyard debt?

Not necessarily. Security can allow the vessel to be released while the underlying invoice dispute continues.

What if part of the invoice is undisputed?

The owner should consider separating and addressing the undisputed amount rather than treating every invoice item as contested.

What if repairs are defective?

The owner should notify the yard immediately and obtain independent technical evidence. Defective workmanship may create warranty, price-reduction, corrective-work or damages claims depending on the contract and applicable law.

Can the owner claim lost charter hire?

Potentially, if the yard’s wrongful conduct caused the loss and the requirements for compensation are established. Contractual exclusions and liability caps must also be reviewed.

What if there is a London arbitration clause?

The merits may need to be determined in arbitration, while Turkish proceedings concerning a vessel physically located in Turkey may still need to be considered separately.

Should the master simply sail if there is no obvious arrest order?

No. The vessel’s judicial, harbour-master, customs and port status should be confirmed before departure.

Emergency Maritime Lawyer in Turkey for Vessel Release

When a Turkish shipyard refuses to release a foreign vessel, the owner should treat the situation as an asset-release emergency rather than merely an invoice dispute.

Every additional day may create substantial losses.

The first task is to identify whether the vessel is being held because of a private shipyard claim, contractual retention right, judicial ship arrest or official departure restriction.

The second task is to separate the underlying financial dispute from the immediate vessel-release problem.

In many cases, the commercially effective strategy is to obtain release through an appropriate payment or security mechanism while expressly preserving the owner’s right to challenge unauthorized work, inflated invoices, defective repairs, delay damages and loss of hire.

Where the yard has obtained judicial arrest, the court file should be reviewed immediately. Where no official arrest exists, the legal basis of continued physical detention should be challenged.

At the same time, owners should preserve technical evidence before the vessel departs. A rapid release should not destroy a later multimillion-dollar defective-repair claim.

Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office assists foreign shipowners, vessel managers, operators, P&I interests and marine insurers with Turkish shipyard disputes, emergency vessel release, ship repair invoice disputes, ship arrest, security and release applications, defective repair claims, delayed redelivery, loss of hire, shipyard liability, maritime litigation and international arbitration involving vessels in Turkey.

Phone: +90 312 434 22 22
Mobile: +90 532 769 22 22
Email: info@firatfesihkaya.av.tr
Address: Mevlana Boulevard No: 221, Yıldırım Tower, Balgat, Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey