Turkish shipyard refusing to release your vessel over unpaid or disputed repair invoices? Learn the rights of foreign shipowners, shipyard security claims, vessel arrest risks, disputed invoices, emergency court remedies and release strategies in Turkey.

A Turkish shipyard refusing to release a foreign-owned vessel can turn an ordinary repair invoice dispute into an urgent maritime crisis. The shipowner may have already paid the agreed repair price but dispute additional invoices for unauthorized work, inflated steel quantities, subcontractor charges, storage fees or delay costs. The yard may respond by refusing departure, withholding documents or asserting that the vessel will remain at the facility until the entire amount claimed is paid. Meanwhile, the foreign shipowner may be losing tens of thousands of dollars every day because the vessel cannot return to commercial service. An existing charterparty may be placed at risk, the vessel may go off-hire, crew and insurance expenses continue, and the owner’s negotiating position deteriorates as each additional day passes. Under Turkish law, however, a shipyard’s claim for repair charges and its ability to obtain security against a vessel must be distinguished from an unrestricted right to immobilize a ship indefinitely. Ship repair, reconstruction, conversion and equipping claims are specifically important within Turkish maritime law, and a repair yard may have powerful security and enforcement remedies. Whether the yard can lawfully keep the vessel, whether judicial arrest is required, whether the owner can provide alternative security, whether the invoice can be challenged and whether losses caused by an unlawful refusal can later be recovered all depend on the contract, the nature of the debt, the possession of the vessel and the procedural steps taken. For a foreign shipowner in 2026, the issue should therefore be treated as an emergency vessel-release, security and commercial-loss dispute, not merely as an argument over an invoice.

Why Do Turkish Shipyards Refuse to Release Vessels?

The most common reason is an unpaid repair invoice.

However, the phrase “unpaid invoice” can conceal a much more complicated dispute.

The owner may accept USD 700,000 of a USD 1 million invoice but dispute the remaining USD 300,000.

The yard may nevertheless insist that nothing leaves until the entire invoice is paid.

The legal analysis must therefore begin by separating undisputed debt from genuinely disputed amounts.

Disputed Additional Works

Additional works are one of the most common sources of vessel-release disputes.

A ship enters the yard with an agreed repair scope.

After dry-docking, the yard discovers additional steel renewal, piping, machinery or coating work.

The final invoice then substantially exceeds the original quotation.

The owner may argue that the additional works were never authorized.

The yard may respond that the vessel’s superintendent approved them.

The authority and documentation surrounding each variation can become decisive.

Fixed Price or Estimate?

The first question should be whether the original repair price was fixed.

A fixed-price contract creates a different dispute from a quotation based on estimated quantities.

Steel renewal, blasting and coating works are frequently calculated according to actual measurements.

The owner should therefore review the pricing mechanism before alleging overcharging.

Unauthorized Repair Work

A yard should not assume that every technically useful operation automatically becomes payable at whatever price it later chooses.

The repair contract may require written approval for additional work.

If no approval exists, the yard may need to establish another legal basis for its claim.

Emails, superintendent reports and messaging communications should therefore be reviewed carefully.

Who Had Authority to Approve Extra Work?

Shipyards frequently rely on instructions from the vessel’s superintendent, technical manager, chief engineer or master.

The owner may later argue that the person lacked authority to approve additional expenditure.

The repair contract should specify who can authorize variations.

This can prevent substantial disputes.

Final Invoice Much Higher Than the Quotation

Suppose a foreign shipowner receives a quotation for USD 450,000.

The final invoice is USD 900,000.

The shipowner should not simply ask whether the amount is “too high.”

Each additional item should be categorized as agreed work, approved variation, disputed variation, quantity adjustment or allegedly unauthorized work.

The legal dispute then becomes much clearer.

Shipyard Claims Are Maritime Claims

Claims arising from the construction, reconstruction, repair, conversion or equipping of a vessel can qualify as maritime claims under Turkish maritime law.

This is important because Turkish law provides specialized mechanisms for securing maritime claims.

A shipyard therefore potentially has powerful remedies when repair invoices remain unpaid.

Ship Arrest Is Different From Simply Refusing Release

This distinction is fundamental.

A judicial ship arrest is a court-ordered provisional measure.

A shipyard’s refusal to allow a vessel to depart based on contractual or possessory rights is a different legal issue.

The owner should identify which mechanism the yard is actually relying upon.

Ask the Yard for Its Legal Basis

When a yard refuses release, the owner should immediately request a clear written explanation.

Is the yard asserting a contractual lien?

Is it claiming a right of retention under Turkish law?

Has a Turkish court ordered arrest of the vessel?

Has an enforcement proceeding been initiated?

Has a port or harbour authority received a judicial order?

These situations require different responses.

Has the Vessel Been Arrested by a Court?

The owner should establish this immediately.

If a Turkish court has issued a ship arrest order, the dispute is no longer merely a private disagreement at the yard gate.

The owner must obtain and review the judicial decision.

The amount secured, claimant identity, legal basis and procedural deadlines should be identified.

Ship Arrest for Repair Claims

Because qualifying ship repair claims can constitute maritime claims, a repair yard may seek arrest of the vessel where statutory requirements are satisfied.

The arrest procedure provides judicial security for the yard’s alleged receivable while the merits of the invoice may be determined separately.

For foreign owners, this means that a disputed invoice can create an immediate operational problem even before a final judgment exists.

Arrest Does Not Mean the Yard Has Won the Invoice Dispute

A provisional arrest is not necessarily a final determination that the entire repair invoice is correct.

The underlying claim may still be disputed.

The owner may challenge unauthorized work, incorrect quantities, defective repairs, contractual penalties, set-off or other defenses.

Security and merits should therefore be analyzed separately.

Maritime Claim Does Not Automatically Mean Maritime Lien

This distinction is also important.

A maritime claim and a maritime lien are not identical legal concepts.

A claim may support particular maritime security procedures without necessarily having the priority status associated with a maritime lien.

Foreign shipowners should therefore avoid assuming that every repair invoice has the same ranking as crew wages or other specially protected maritime claims.

Shipyard’s Possessory Rights

Where the vessel remains physically within the yard’s possession, the yard may assert security rights connected with unpaid work.

The existence and scope of any retention right must be examined under the repair contract and applicable Turkish law.

The yard’s physical possession of the vessel can therefore materially affect the owner’s practical position.

Contractual Lien Clauses

Many ship repair contracts contain clauses giving the yard rights over the vessel for unpaid amounts.

The wording should be reviewed carefully.

The clause may address repair charges, additional work, interest, storage fees and other expenses.

The validity and scope of the clause should be assessed under the governing law.

Can a Shipyard Keep the Vessel Forever?

A disputed invoice does not create an unlimited commercial power to immobilize a vessel indefinitely without regard to legal procedures.

The precise rights of the yard depend on the contract, applicable statutory rules and any judicial measures obtained.

If continued detention lacks a valid legal basis, the owner may need to seek urgent judicial protection.

Port Authority Versus Shipyard

The owner should distinguish between a yard physically refusing departure and an official restriction imposed by Turkish authorities.

A harbour authority may act because of a court order, safety issue, regulatory deficiency or another legal reason.

A shipyard cannot automatically transform a private payment dispute into an official sailing prohibition merely by requesting it.

The legal source of the restriction must be identified.

Classification Problems Can Also Prevent Departure

Sometimes the yard is not the real reason the vessel cannot sail.

Incomplete repairs may leave the vessel without required class approval.

The owner should therefore determine whether technical or statutory certificates are outstanding.

Payment of the invoice alone may not solve such a problem.

Foreign Flag Does Not Prevent Turkish Measures

The fact that the vessel is foreign-flagged does not make it immune from Turkish maritime procedures while located within Turkish jurisdiction.

Foreign vessels can become subject to Turkish judicial measures where the statutory requirements are satisfied.

The owner’s nationality similarly does not prevent the yard from pursuing its claim.

Bareboat Charter Complications

The registered owner may not be the party that ordered the repairs.

A bareboat charterer, manager or another operator may have contracted with the yard.

This can significantly affect the analysis.

The yard’s ability to proceed against the vessel itself must be distinguished from its contractual claim against the company that ordered the work.

Technical Manager Orders Repairs

A technical management company may sign the repair contract on behalf of the owner.

The owner should examine the management agreement and authority granted.

If the yard asserts that the manager bound the owner to additional work, the scope of authority may become central.

Charterer Orders Repairs

A more difficult scenario arises when a charterer orders repairs.

The owner may argue that it never contracted with the yard.

The yard may nevertheless attempt to secure payment against the vessel.

The relationship between the repair debtor and vessel ownership must then be analyzed under the applicable maritime rules.

Vessel Sold After Repairs

Ownership changes can create additional complexity.

A yard may attempt to assert a repair claim after the vessel has been sold.

The timing of the work, debt, sale and any security rights becomes important.

A buyer conducting due diligence should investigate outstanding shipyard disputes before completing a vessel purchase.

Unpaid Undisputed Amounts

A foreign shipowner disputing part of an invoice should carefully consider whether undisputed amounts should be paid.

Refusing to pay amounts that are clearly due can weaken the owner’s commercial and legal position.

The payment should nevertheless be documented so that it cannot easily be characterized as acceptance of disputed charges.

Payment Under Protest

In urgent situations, an owner may consider paying a disputed amount under an express reservation in order to obtain vessel release.

Whether this is commercially sensible depends on the amount, daily vessel losses and prospects of later recovery.

The wording accompanying the payment should be carefully prepared.

Pay Now and Sue Later?

Sometimes this is economically rational.

Suppose the disputed invoice is USD 150,000 but the vessel loses USD 40,000 per day while immobilized.

A three-week legal battle over immediate possession may cost more than the disputed invoice.

The owner may therefore choose to secure release first and pursue reimbursement later.

This is a commercial decision that should be made without accidentally waiving the underlying claim.

Bank Guarantee as Security

Another possible solution is replacement security.

The owner may propose a bank guarantee covering the disputed amount.

If acceptable, this can protect the yard while allowing the vessel to return to service.

The guarantee wording, amount and duration should be negotiated carefully.

P&I Club Letter of Undertaking

Depending on the nature of the dispute and the parties involved, a Letter of Undertaking from an acceptable P&I Club may be proposed as security.

Whether the yard must accept such security is a separate question.

Nevertheless, it can provide a practical negotiated solution in international maritime disputes.

Cash Security

Cash can also be offered or deposited where appropriate.

However, the owner should ensure that the terms governing release of the funds are clear.

Security should not become equivalent to unconditional payment of the disputed invoice.

Court-Ordered Security

Where the vessel has been judicially arrested, Turkish procedural rules may provide mechanisms for release against appropriate security.

The precise amount and form of security should be determined according to the arrest decision and applicable law.

Obtaining release may therefore be possible without first resolving the entire repair dispute.

Challenge the Arrest

If the yard has obtained a judicial arrest, the owner should examine whether the statutory requirements were satisfied.

Possible issues may include the existence of a maritime claim, claimant’s evidence, ownership or debtor relationship, amount of the security and procedural compliance.

The appropriate challenge should be filed within the applicable procedural framework.

Excessive Arrest Amount

The yard may claim substantially more than the owner believes is owed.

The owner should break the claim into principal repair charges, additional work, interest, storage, penalties and other items.

If the security amount is disproportionate or includes unsupported charges, reduction may need to be sought.

Wrong Vessel Arrested

Corporate shipping structures can create serious mistakes.

A repair contract may have been signed by one company while the arrested vessel belongs to another.

The owner should immediately verify registered ownership and the statutory basis permitting arrest of that particular vessel.

Group-company relationships alone do not automatically eliminate separate corporate personality.

Sister Ship Issues

A yard attempting to secure a repair claim against another vessel owned by the debtor raises specialized maritime-arrest questions.

The owner should examine whether the statutory requirements for arresting the particular vessel are satisfied.

A general commercial relationship between several group vessels is not enough by itself.

Defective Repairs as a Defense

The owner may argue that the yard’s invoice should not be paid in full because the repair work itself is defective.

For example, the yard demands USD 600,000 while the owner faces USD 250,000 of corrective repair costs.

The owner’s defect claims should be documented with technical evidence rather than presented as a vague allegation.

Set-Off

The owner may have claims against the yard for defective work, delay or vessel damage.

Whether and how those claims can be set off against the yard’s invoice depends on the contract and applicable law.

The owner should quantify each counterclaim separately.

Delay Damages

The yard may already have missed the contractual redelivery date before the payment dispute begins.

The owner may therefore have a substantial delay claim.

The final account should distinguish the yard’s repair invoice from the owner’s delay damages.

Loss of Hire

Every day of detention can produce substantial commercial loss.

If the vessel was under charter, the owner should preserve the charterparty, hire rate, off-hire notices and charterer correspondence.

If a fixture is lost, broker communications should be retained.

Can Loss of Hire Be Recovered?

Potentially, but recoverability depends on the legal basis of liability, causation, foreseeability, contractual exclusions and proof.

Shipyard contracts frequently contain clauses excluding loss of profit, loss of use or consequential losses.

These provisions should be analyzed before the owner calculates a multimillion-dollar claim.

Unlawful Vessel Detention

If a yard has no valid contractual, statutory or judicial basis for continuing to prevent release, the owner may potentially pursue remedies based on the resulting wrongful conduct.

However, the owner must first establish why the yard lacked the claimed right.

The fact that the invoice was disputed does not automatically make the detention unlawful.

Emergency Court Application

Where the vessel is being held without a valid basis and commercial losses are escalating, urgent Turkish court proceedings may need to be considered.

The appropriate remedy depends on whether the dispute concerns possession, contractual performance, an existing arrest order or another form of interference.

The factual and legal basis must therefore be identified before filing.

Evidence Preservation Before Leaving the Yard

Even where release is the immediate priority, the owner should preserve evidence concerning the repair dispute.

Once the vessel sails, proving what happened inside the yard becomes more difficult.

Photographs, surveys, work records and correspondence should be secured before departure where possible.

Obtain the Final Account

The yard should be asked to provide a detailed final account rather than merely a single total figure.

Each disputed charge should be linked to a work item, quantity, rate and authorization.

This allows the owner to challenge the invoice systematically.

Compare the Final Invoice With the Repair Specification

A useful analysis is:

Original Scope → Original Price → Approved Variations → Agreed Additional Price → Disputed Variations → Unapproved Work → Delay Charges → Owner Counterclaims → Undisputed Balance.

This transforms an emotional payment dispute into an auditable commercial account.

Steel Quantity Disputes

Steel renewal frequently creates large final-account disputes.

The owner should compare invoiced quantities with thickness measurements, drawings, superintendent records and class documentation.

Where the contract uses a per-kilogram or per-ton rate, even modest quantity differences can materially affect the invoice.

Man-Hour Disputes

Some additional work is charged according to labor hours.

The owner should request supporting timesheets and work records.

An invoice showing thousands of additional man-hours without contemporaneous documentation may require detailed examination.

Subcontractor Charges

The yard may add subcontractor invoices to the owner’s final bill.

The contract should determine whether markup is permitted and whether prior approval was required.

The owner should not automatically assume every subcontractor expense is payable.

Storage and Berthing Fees

Once the owner refuses payment, the yard may begin adding daily storage or berth charges.

These amounts can escalate rapidly.

The legal basis and contractual rate should therefore be challenged or clarified immediately rather than months later.

Interest

The yard may also claim contractual or statutory interest.

The owner should determine the correct commencement date and rate.

Interest should be calculated separately from the principal repair dispute.

Do Not Sign a Broad Debt Acknowledgment

A yard may offer vessel release in exchange for a signed acknowledgment of debt.

The owner should review such documents carefully.

A statement confirming the entire invoice as unconditional debt can seriously damage later defenses.

Settlement Agreement

A negotiated settlement may be the fastest solution.

For example, the owner pays the undisputed amount, provides security for the disputed balance and both parties agree to resolve the remaining account through litigation or arbitration.

A well-structured agreement can restore the vessel to service without forcing either party to abandon its legal position.

Release Protocol

Any settlement should state precisely what happens after payment or security.

The yard should confirm that it will release the vessel, issue necessary documents and withdraw any relevant claims or arrest measures as agreed.

Ambiguous promises can create further delay.

Port Clearance

The owner should coordinate vessel release with port and harbour procedures.

Even after resolving the yard dispute, the vessel may require formal clearance before departure.

Legal release and operational sailing readiness should therefore be coordinated.

Classification and Safety Documentation

The vessel should not depart merely because the payment dispute is solved.

Class status, statutory certificates and repair completion should be checked.

An owner under financial pressure should not compromise vessel safety simply to escape the yard.

Arbitration Clause in the Repair Contract

Many international repair agreements contain arbitration provisions.

The underlying invoice dispute may therefore have to be resolved through arbitration rather than Turkish court proceedings.

However, urgent security and vessel-release issues in Turkey may require separate procedural analysis.

Foreign Jurisdiction Clause

The contract may designate foreign courts.

Again, this does not mean the physical detention or judicial arrest of a vessel in Turkey can simply be ignored.

The owner should distinguish the forum deciding the merits from the jurisdiction handling local provisional measures.

Turkish Courts and Maritime Jurisdiction

Ship repair and ship arrest disputes can fall within specialized maritime commercial jurisdiction.

Selecting the correct court is particularly important when emergency relief is required.

Filing before an incorrect court can waste valuable time while the vessel remains idle.

Evidence From the Vessel Superintendent

The superintendent can be one of the most important witnesses.

Daily reports may establish additional work requests, delay causes, disputed quantities and promises made by the yard.

These records should be preserved in their original form.

Email Evidence

Emails can establish whether the owner approved a particular repair.

They can also show that the yard promised completion by a particular date.

The complete correspondence chain should be retained.

WhatsApp and Messaging Records

Ship repair projects often involve constant informal messaging.

These records may become relevant to additional-work authorization and delay.

Screenshots alone should not be the only preservation method where complete conversations can be retained.

Surveyor Evidence

If the owner alleges defective work, an independent surveyor should inspect the vessel.

Technical evidence can also support the owner’s negotiating position when the yard demands full payment before release.

A quantified technical counterclaim is more persuasive than a general allegation of poor workmanship.

Classification Society Evidence

Class records can establish what work was required, what was completed and whether defects remain.

However, class approval does not necessarily resolve every contractual quality dispute.

The repair specification may require a higher or different standard.

First 24 Hours After the Yard Refuses Release

The owner should immediately request written confirmation of the legal and contractual basis for refusing release. The repair contract, final invoice and complete variation history should be collected. The owner should establish whether any Turkish court has issued an arrest order and whether the harbour authority has received any official restriction.

The undisputed and disputed portions of the invoice should be calculated separately.

First 48 Hours

The owner should evaluate release options.

These may include payment of undisputed amounts, negotiated security, bank guarantee, appropriate undertaking, cash security or procedural steps relating to an arrest.

At the same time, the owner should preserve evidence supporting defective-work, delay and overcharging defenses.

First 72 Hours

The owner should quantify the commercial cost of continued detention.

Daily charter income, crew costs, insurance, port expenses and lost fixtures should be documented.

The legal team should then compare the cost of continued immobilization with the financial consequences of providing security or making payment under reservation.

Five Questions the Foreign Shipowner Must Answer

The owner should establish:

What amount is genuinely undisputed? What exact legal basis is the yard using to keep the vessel? Is there a judicial arrest order? What security would permit immediate release? What claims does the owner have against the yard for delay, defective work or vessel damage?

Without answers to these questions, negotiations can become unnecessarily chaotic.

Example: USD 200,000 Additional Work Dispute

A foreign owner agrees to USD 800,000 of repairs.

The final invoice is USD 1 million.

The yard refuses to release the vessel unless the additional USD 200,000 is paid.

The owner argues that no written variations were approved.

The immediate strategy should be to verify whether the yard has a judicial arrest or other valid security basis, identify the undisputed balance, examine variation authorization and consider security for the disputed amount so that the vessel can return to commercial service.

Example: Vessel Held Despite Full Payment

The owner pays the agreed repair price.

The yard subsequently demands additional storage and subcontractor charges and continues refusing release.

The owner should demand the contractual basis for those charges and identify whether any judicial measure exists.

If the continued refusal lacks a valid basis, urgent release remedies and a later damages claim may need to be considered.

Example: Owner Claims Defective Work

The yard demands USD 500,000.

The owner has an independent survey showing that defective engine repairs will cost USD 300,000 to correct.

The owner should formally document its counterclaim and determine whether set-off or another defense is available.

The technical evidence should be preserved before further repairs alter the failed components.

Example: Judicial Arrest Obtained

The yard obtains a Turkish court order arresting the vessel for a repair claim.

The owner has a charter commencing within five days.

Rather than waiting for the merits dispute to conclude, the owner may need to explore acceptable replacement security and seek release while reserving its right to challenge the repair invoice.

Example: Yard Refuses a P&I Undertaking

The owner offers security, but the yard rejects it.

The legal team should determine whether the proposed security must legally be accepted or whether court intervention is required.

The owner should not assume that every form of international maritime security automatically compels release.

2026 Legal Strategy When a Turkish Shipyard Refuses to Release a Vessel

A foreign shipowner facing vessel detention at a Turkish repair yard should separate the dispute into four parallel questions: debt, security, possession and commercial loss. First, the complete repair account should be reconstructed to distinguish the original contract price, approved variations, disputed additional work, storage charges, interest and the owner’s counterclaims. Second, the precise legal basis for keeping the vessel must be established. The owner should determine whether the yard relies on a contractual lien or retention mechanism, a statutory right or an actual Turkish court arrest order. Third, immediate release options should be evaluated without waiting for final resolution of the repair invoice. Payment of undisputed amounts, payment under reservation, bank security, negotiated undertakings, cash security or court-controlled security may provide commercially preferable solutions. Fourth, the owner should preserve its own claims for defective work, delayed redelivery, vessel damage and loss of hire. Every additional day of detention should be documented financially. If the yard’s continued interference is ultimately shown to lack a lawful basis, the resulting losses may become relevant to a compensation claim subject to the contract and applicable law. The practical roadmap is therefore: obtain the repair contract → obtain the final invoice → separate undisputed and disputed amounts → identify every variation → verify who authorized additional work → request the legal basis for detention → check whether a court arrest exists → obtain the arrest decision if applicable → verify vessel ownership → review the yard’s claimed security rights → quantify owner counterclaims → preserve defective-work evidence → calculate delay damages → calculate daily loss of hire → offer appropriate security where commercially sensible → negotiate a release protocol → challenge excessive or improper measures where appropriate → secure port clearance → obtain vessel release → preserve all reservations of rights → resolve the underlying invoice dispute through the agreed litigation or arbitration mechanism → pursue recoverable losses caused by defective work, delay or any established wrongful detention.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Can a Turkish shipyard refuse to release a foreign vessel because repair invoices are unpaid?

Potentially, depending on the repair contract, applicable Turkish law, possession of the vessel and any judicial security measures. The yard’s precise legal basis should be identified immediately.

2. Does a disputed repair invoice automatically allow the yard to keep the vessel?

No automatic conclusion should be drawn merely because an invoice exists. The yard’s contractual, statutory or judicial basis for retaining or arresting the vessel must be examined separately from the merits of the invoice dispute.

3. Can a Turkish shipyard arrest a foreign vessel for unpaid repair costs?

Potentially, yes. Qualifying claims arising from vessel repair, reconstruction, conversion or equipping can constitute maritime claims, allowing ship arrest to be considered where the statutory conditions are satisfied.

4. Does ship arrest mean the owner must pay the entire invoice?

No. Arrest is a security measure and does not necessarily constitute a final determination that every disputed invoice item is valid. The underlying claim can still be challenged.

5. Can the vessel be released by providing security?

Potentially. Depending on the circumstances, suitable security may allow the vessel to be released while the underlying repair dispute continues. The form and amount of security require case-specific analysis.

6. Can the owner pay under protest and later recover the disputed amount?

Potentially, depending on the circumstances and how the payment and reservation of rights are structured. Where vessel downtime greatly exceeds the disputed amount, this may sometimes be commercially preferable to prolonged detention.

7. What if the shipyard performed defective repairs?

The owner may have separate claims concerning correction costs, price reduction, damages, delay or other legally recoverable losses. Defects should be supported with independent technical evidence.

8. Can the shipowner claim loss of hire while the vessel is being held?

Potentially, where the legal requirements for liability and damages are established. Contractual exclusions or limitations concerning loss of hire must also be examined.

9. What should the owner do if a Turkish court has already arrested the vessel?

Obtain the arrest decision immediately, review the maritime claim and security amount, examine available objections and evaluate whether appropriate replacement security can secure prompt vessel release while the merits dispute continues.

10. What is the fastest practical strategy when the vessel is losing substantial income every day?

The owner should simultaneously challenge unsupported charges and evaluate a commercially viable release mechanism. Where daily vessel losses are substantial, obtaining release against carefully structured security while reserving the underlying defenses can sometimes be more economical than allowing the vessel to remain immobilized.

Legal Support for Foreign Shipowners in Turkish Shipyard Detention Disputes

Foreign shipowners, vessel operators, ship managers and international maritime companies whose vessels are being withheld by a Turkish shipyard may require urgent assistance with vessel release, unpaid and disputed repair invoices, ship arrest, maritime security, unauthorized additional works, defective repairs, loss of hire, delayed redelivery and shipyard liability.

Firat Fesih Kaya Law Office assists foreign shipowners and international maritime companies facing urgent vessel-release and shipyard disputes in Turkey. Firat Fesih Kaya can assist with reviewing the legal basis asserted by the shipyard, challenging disputed repair charges, evaluating security and vessel-release options, responding to ship arrest proceedings and pursuing claims arising from delay, defective work or vessel damage.

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