Freight charges unpaid in Turkey? Learn how foreign shipping companies, carriers and shipowners can recover freight, demurrage and related maritime receivables through cargo retention, enforcement proceedings, lawsuits, attachment and other remedies under Turkish law.

International transportation depends on a simple commercial bargain: the carrier transports the cargo and the party responsible for freight pays the agreed amount.

In practice, payment disputes are common.

A foreign shipping company may deliver cargo to a Turkish port only to discover that the consignee refuses to pay freight. A charterer may accumulate unpaid hire or freight. A customer may dispute demurrage, detention or additional port expenses. Cargo may be awaiting delivery while substantial freight remains outstanding.

For shipping companies, waiting too long can significantly weaken recovery prospects. Cargo may be released, the debtor may move assets, the vessel may sail, or the company responsible for payment may enter financial distress.

The key question is therefore not simply whether the freight is owed, but what security and enforcement tools are still available when the debt is discovered.

Under Turkish maritime law, claims arising from agreements concerning the carriage of goods or passengers by ship fall within the statutory maritime-claim framework relevant to ship arrest. Turkish law also provides carriers with important security mechanisms concerning cargo in their possession. (Global Practice Guides)

What Are Freight Charges?

Freight is the remuneration payable for the carriage of cargo.

Depending on the contractual structure, the obligation may arise under a bill of lading, voyage charterparty, contract of affreightment, booking agreement or another maritime transport contract.

The amount recoverable may extend beyond the basic ocean freight.

Depending on the contract and circumstances, disputes may concern:

freight, deadfreight, demurrage, detention, container charges, storage expenses, handling costs, port expenses, additional freight and contractual interest.

Each component should be identified separately before Turkish recovery proceedings begin.

Who Is Responsible for Paying the Freight?

This is the first issue that should be resolved.

The party receiving the invoice is not necessarily always the party legally responsible for payment.

Depending on the contractual structure, potential debtors may include the shipper, charterer, consignee or another contractual counterparty.

The bill of lading, charterparty, booking confirmation, freight invoice and commercial correspondence should therefore be examined together.

Before filing proceedings, counsel should answer:

Who promised to pay?

What amount became due?

When did it become due?

Is there a jurisdiction or arbitration clause?

Is the cargo still under the carrier’s control?

These questions determine the recovery strategy.

Freight Prepaid vs Freight Collect

The bill of lading may state that freight is “prepaid” or “collect.”

This can become important evidence, but the wording should not necessarily be considered in isolation.

The underlying contractual arrangement must also be examined.

If freight is marked prepaid but was never actually received, the carrier should investigate which contractual party remains responsible.

Likewise, freight collect arrangements require careful consideration of the consignee’s obligations and the circumstances surrounding delivery.

Can a Carrier Refuse to Deliver Cargo Until Freight Is Paid?

Potentially, and this can be one of the strongest forms of leverage available to the carrier.

Turkish law recognizes a carrier’s right of retention over cargo in connection with receivables arising from carriage by sea, subject to the statutory requirements. The right is linked to the carrier’s possession of the goods and operates within the framework referenced by the Turkish Commercial Code and the Turkish Civil Code. (Erdem & Erdem)

This means timing matters enormously.

Once cargo has been unconditionally delivered, the carrier may lose practical security that was available while it retained possession.

Carrier’s Right of Retention Over Cargo

The retention mechanism should not be treated as a general right to hold any cargo for any unrelated debt.

The legal requirements must be satisfied.

According to commentary on the Turkish Commercial Code framework, the sea carrier’s retention right secures receivables arising from the maritime carriage contract and operates through the general retention provisions of Articles 950–953 of the Turkish Civil Code. (Erdem & Erdem)

Accordingly, the contractual relationship, ownership of the cargo, possession and connection between the debt and goods must be examined before withholding delivery.

Do Not Release Cargo Before Checking the Debt

This is one of the most important practical rules in freight recovery.

Suppose USD 180,000 freight remains unpaid.

The cargo is still sitting at a Turkish terminal.

The consignee asks the carrier to release the goods and promises:

“Payment will be made next week.”

If the carrier releases valuable cargo without obtaining payment or reliable security, the commercial position can change dramatically.

Before release, the carrier should determine whether a valid retention right exists and whether payment, a bank guarantee or another acceptable form of security should be required.

Retention Is Not the Same as Ship Arrest

These concepts are frequently confused.

A carrier’s retention right over cargo concerns security through possession of the goods.

Ship arrest is a judicial provisional measure imposed against a vessel to secure a qualifying maritime claim.

They operate differently and require different legal conditions.

A shipping company should therefore not simply ask its lawyer:

“Can we put a lien on something?”

The correct question is which asset can lawfully secure the particular debt.

Is Unpaid Freight a Maritime Claim?

Claims arising from contracts concerning the carriage of goods by ship are included within Turkey’s maritime-claim regime.

This is important because Turkish law restricts precautionary ship arrest to claims falling within the statutory maritime-claim categories. Current Turkish shipping guidance confirms that ship arrest is governed principally through the Turkish Commercial Code framework implementing the international arrest regime. (Global Practice Guides)

However, identifying a debt as a maritime claim does not automatically mean that any vessel can be arrested.

The statutory arrest conditions must also be satisfied.

Can a Shipping Company Arrest a Ship for Unpaid Freight?

Potentially, but the answer depends heavily on who owes the freight and which vessel is targeted.

Turkish Commercial Code Article 1369 establishes specific conditions concerning the relationship between the maritime claim, the person liable for the debt and ownership or chartering of the vessel. (Tim Drayton)

This is critical.

A claimant should not assume:

“It is a maritime debt, therefore I can arrest the ship.”

The liability and ownership structure must first be mapped.

Owner Liability vs Charterer Liability

Many freight disputes involve charterers.

Suppose Company A owns the vessel.

Company B charters it.

Company C has a freight dispute with Company B.

The fact that the claim arose in maritime commerce does not necessarily make Company A’s vessel security for every debt incurred by Company B.

Current Turkish practice emphasizes that, as a general rule, personal liability of the relevant owner or demise charterer matters when determining whether a particular ship can be arrested, subject to specific exceptions such as qualifying maritime liens. (Global Practice Guides)

Corporate and charterparty relationships should therefore be checked before an arrest application is filed.

Sister-Ship Arrest

In qualifying circumstances, Turkish law can permit arrest of another vessel owned by the person liable for the maritime claim.

Article 1369 contains the relevant framework, and current Turkish shipping guidance recognizes sister-ship arrest under Article 1369(2). (Global Practice Guides)

For creditors, this can be important where the vessel associated with the original transaction has already left Turkey but another qualifying vessel owned by the debtor enters Turkish jurisdiction.

Again, ownership must be verified carefully.

Ship Arrest Requires Speed

Shipping assets move.

A vessel may arrive in Türkiye in the morning, finish operations and depart shortly afterward.

An arrest application that is prepared after departure has little practical value against that port call.

Therefore, when a creditor learns that a relevant debtor-owned vessel is approaching or currently located at a Turkish port, documentation should be prepared immediately.

Maritime debt recovery frequently rewards preparation more than prolonged correspondence.

What Evidence Is Needed for Ship Arrest?

The claimant must provide prima facie evidence supporting both the existence and amount of the maritime claim.

Current 2026 Turkish shipping guidance states that original documents are not necessarily required at the arrest-application stage, although supporting evidence must establish the claim on a prima facie basis. (Global Practice Guides)

Relevant documents may include the charterparty, bill of lading, booking agreement, freight invoice, statement of account, notice of default and correspondence acknowledging the debt.

Foreign Documents

Foreign shipping companies should anticipate translation and power-of-attorney requirements.

Current Turkish practice indicates that foreign-language documents relied upon for arrest proceedings require Turkish translation and that a power of attorney executed abroad generally needs appropriate notarization/legalization or apostille formalities. (Global Practice Guides)

A creditor expecting to arrest a vessel in Turkey should prepare these documents before the vessel arrives where possible.

Counter-Security for Ship Arrest

Ship arrest generally requires the claimant to provide counter-security.

Current Turkish shipping guidance reports a standard counter-security level of SDR 10,000, subject to the court’s power to increase or decrease the amount depending on the circumstances. (Global Practice Guides)

This requirement should be factored into the recovery plan before an emergency arrest application is filed.

Why Ship Arrest Can Be Powerful

A ship is a high-value but highly mobile asset.

Once judicial arrest prevents departure, the commercial consequences can become substantial.

The debtor or vessel interests may therefore prefer to provide security rather than leave the ship immobilized while the underlying dispute continues.

Importantly, obtaining security does not necessarily mean that the creditor has already won the freight dispute.

The security preserves the creditor’s position while the merits are determined.

Release of Vessel Against Security

An arrested vessel can potentially be released against adequate security.

Current Turkish practice indicates that security may take the form of cash or an unconditional Turkish bank guarantee, while alternative security such as a P&I Club letter of undertaking or foreign bank guarantee can potentially be accepted by agreement between the relevant parties. (Global Practice Guides)

For the creditor, acceptable security can sometimes be commercially preferable to keeping the vessel physically arrested.

The objective is recovery, not unnecessary immobilization of the ship.

Freight and Hire Are Different

Shipping companies should distinguish freight from charter hire.

Freight generally concerns remuneration for carriage.

Hire typically concerns amounts payable for use of a vessel under a time charter or similar arrangement.

The contractual documents and debtor relationships differ.

A recovery petition should accurately characterize the claim rather than loosely calling every maritime payment “freight.”

Voyage Charter Freight

Under a voyage charter, freight disputes can concern agreed freight, deadfreight, demurrage or additional expenses.

The charterparty should be examined for payment provisions, liens, jurisdiction, arbitration, applicable law and notice requirements.

Industry-standard charterparty clauses can materially affect the parties’ rights.

Time Charter Hire

Where unpaid amounts arise under a time charter, the owner’s remedies may be shaped heavily by the charterparty.

The agreement may contain withdrawal rights, anti-technicality provisions, liens over subfreights or sub-hire and arbitration clauses.

These contractual remedies should be coordinated with whatever provisional measures may be available under Turkish law.

Lien on Subfreights

Some charterparties contain contractual liens on subfreights or sub-hire.

These clauses can become valuable where a charterer owes substantial amounts but is still receiving freight from third parties.

However, contractual wording, applicable law and the identity of the party holding the money must be examined carefully.

A lien clause should not be enforced mechanically without analyzing the governing contract and Turkish enforcement implications.

Can Freight Itself Be Attached?

This should be distinguished from arresting a vessel.

Current Turkish shipping guidance notes that there is no special maritime provision simply allowing “arrest of freight” in the same manner as ship arrest, but attachment may potentially be available under general enforcement rules where their conditions are satisfied. (Global Practice Guides)

This may become relevant where money owed to the debtor is held by a third party in Turkey.

Bank Account Attachment

Where the debtor has Turkish bank accounts, ordinary enforcement measures may become important.

A shipping company that has an enforceable claim may seek recovery against debtor assets under the applicable Turkish enforcement framework.

The existence of a maritime relationship does not mean that ship arrest is the only possible debt-recovery tool against every asset.

Turkish bank accounts, receivables and other attachable assets may sometimes provide a more efficient recovery route.

Third-Party Receivables

Suppose a Turkish shipping debtor is owed money by another company.

Depending on the procedural posture, enforcement against third-party receivables can potentially become relevant.

For commercial creditors, identifying where the debtor’s money flows can be as important as locating physical assets.

Invoices, customers, agents and banking relationships should therefore be investigated where lawful and appropriate.

Enforcement Proceedings in Turkey

Where a debtor fails to pay a freight invoice, Turkish enforcement proceedings may potentially be initiated depending on jurisdiction and the nature of the underlying documentation.

The debtor may object.

If that happens, further proceedings may be required to overcome the objection and establish enforceability.

The correct route depends on the contractual documents and whether an existing judgment, arbitral award or other enforceable instrument already exists.

Lawsuit for Unpaid Freight

Where liability is disputed, a court action may be necessary.

The claimant should be prepared to prove the contract, performance of carriage, amount due and identity of the party responsible for payment.

The debtor may raise defenses concerning incorrect invoicing, cargo damage, delay, set-off, overcharged demurrage or breach of the carriage contract.

Freight recovery litigation should therefore be prepared with the anticipated defenses in mind.

Mandatory Commercial Mediation

Turkish commercial disputes may be subject to mandatory mediation requirements before certain monetary claims are litigated before Turkish courts.

Whether mediation is required should be checked based on the nature of the particular claim and proceedings.

This should not be confused with emergency provisional remedies.

Where urgent security is required, counsel should separately consider whether provisional measures can be pursued without waiting for the substantive dispute process to conclude.

Arbitration Clause

Many maritime contracts contain arbitration clauses.

London arbitration is particularly common in charterparty disputes.

Others may provide for arbitration elsewhere.

A Turkish court may therefore not necessarily decide the merits of the freight dispute.

But this does not mean Turkish proceedings are irrelevant.

Where a qualifying maritime claim exists and the vessel is physically located in Turkey, Turkish provisional-security mechanisms may potentially become relevant even where the substantive dispute will ultimately be determined abroad, subject to the applicable statutory rules.

Foreign Arbitration Award

If the shipping company has already obtained an arbitral award abroad, enforcement in Turkey may become possible subject to the applicable recognition and enforcement framework.

The creditor should investigate Turkish assets immediately.

An award against a debtor with no identifiable assets may have little commercial value until property, bank accounts, receivables or vessels are located.

Foreign Court Judgment

The same practical issue applies to foreign judgments.

A foreign judgment does not automatically function exactly like a domestic Turkish enforcement title.

Recognition or enforcement procedures may be necessary before compulsory execution, depending on the nature of the judgment and applicable legal framework.

A creditor should therefore begin asset investigation while preparing the enforcement strategy.

Demurrage Claims

Demurrage disputes frequently accompany unpaid freight.

The creditor should preserve the charterparty, notice of readiness, statement of facts, laytime calculations and correspondence.

A simple invoice may be insufficient where the debtor disputes whether laytime expired.

Demurrage should therefore be calculated transparently.

Container Demurrage and Detention

Container shipping generates another category of claims.

A consignee may keep containers beyond free time, generating demurrage or detention.

The carrier should preserve the tariff or contractual rate, free-time agreement, gate-out and return dates and invoices.

Where substantial amounts accumulate, the carrier should not wait indefinitely before beginning recovery.

Storage and Terminal Expenses

The shipping company may also incur storage or terminal charges because the consignee refuses to collect cargo.

Whether these amounts can be passed to another party depends on the contractual arrangements and applicable law.

The carrier should notify the responsible party promptly and preserve evidence of every additional expense.

Abandoned Cargo

Abandoned cargo can create particularly difficult freight problems.

The consignee refuses delivery.

Freight remains unpaid.

Storage accumulates.

The goods may have little value.

The carrier should not assume that it can simply sell or destroy the cargo.

Customs status, cargo ownership, contractual rights and Turkish legal requirements should be reviewed before disposal.

Perishable Cargo

Perishable cargo requires even faster action.

Holding goods as security may theoretically protect freight, but the security becomes worthless if the goods deteriorate.

The carrier should therefore consider whether lawful sale or other preservation mechanisms are available before the cargo loses value.

Every step should be documented.

Cargo Worth Less Than Freight

Sometimes the outstanding freight and accumulated charges exceed the value of the goods.

In that situation, retaining cargo may have little economic benefit.

The carrier should investigate alternative debtor assets rather than spending substantial money storing commercially worthless goods.

Debt recovery should always be economically proportionate.

Debtor Claims Cargo Damage

A common response to an unpaid freight demand is:

“We will not pay because you damaged our cargo.”

This does not automatically extinguish the freight debt.

The alleged cargo claim must be analyzed separately, including contractual terms, evidence, notice requirements, limitation rules and any claimed right of set-off.

Current Turkish shipping guidance notes that cargo loss, damage and delay claims against the carrier are generally subject to a one-year time bar under TCC Article 1188, subject to the statutory framework. (Global Practice Guides)

Set-Off Defense

The debtor may attempt to set off a cargo-damage claim against freight.

Whether set-off is legally available depends on the applicable law, contractual terms and characteristics of the competing claims.

The carrier should not automatically accept a unilateral deduction merely because the consignee alleges damage.

Evidence supporting both claims must be examined.

Debtor Says “The Shipper Must Pay”

This is another frequent dispute.

The consignee says the shipper is responsible.

The shipper says the freight was collect.

The freight forwarder says it acted only as agent.

The carrier should return to the contractual chain.

The correct defendant should be identified before litigation or enforcement begins.

Freight Forwarder Problems

Shipping companies sometimes invoice a freight forwarder that later argues it was merely acting for a disclosed principal.

Agency status can become decisive.

Booking confirmations, correspondence, invoices and payment history should be reviewed to determine whether the forwarder contracted personally or solely as agent.

Do not assume liability merely from the fact that the forwarder handled the booking.

Insolvent Charterer

The greatest risk arises when the debtor is already financially distressed.

A charterer may owe freight or hire to several shipowners simultaneously.

By the time ordinary litigation concludes, attachable assets may have disappeared.

In such cases, provisional security and immediate asset investigation become especially important.

Turkey’s insolvency system also includes concordat proceedings, which can materially affect individual enforcement strategies. (Global Practice Guides)

Concordat Proceedings

If a Turkish debtor applies for concordat, ordinary recovery efforts may be restricted.

The creditor should identify the proceeding immediately, file or notify its claim where required and monitor the debtor’s restructuring process.

Ignoring the concordat because negotiations are continuing privately can jeopardize recovery.

Interest on Unpaid Freight

The carrier may also claim interest where legally and contractually available.

The applicable interest rate can depend on the contract, governing law, commercial nature of the relationship and currency of the debt.

The demand should therefore distinguish principal freight from accrued interest and other contractual charges.

Foreign-Currency Freight Claims

International freight is frequently invoiced in USD or EUR.

The recovery strategy should identify the contractual payment currency and whether the claim is pursued in that currency or through an applicable conversion mechanism.

Exchange-rate movement can materially affect high-value maritime claims.

Demand Letter Before Proceedings

A formal demand can still be useful.

It should identify the invoice, contract, principal amount, accrued charges, payment deadline and intended legal action.

But a demand letter should not delay urgent security.

If a qualifying vessel is about to leave a Turkish port, spending several days exchanging emails can eliminate the most valuable opportunity to secure the debt.

Debtor Acknowledgment

Written acknowledgment can materially strengthen the evidentiary position.

Emails such as:

“We confirm the USD 250,000 balance and will pay next Friday”

may become important evidence.

Shipping companies should preserve original emails, messaging records and payment proposals.

Screenshots alone should not replace the underlying electronic evidence where the original can be retained.

Partial Payment

Partial payment can also become important evidence concerning the commercial relationship and undisputed portion of the debt.

However, the carrier should clarify in writing whether accepting partial payment constitutes full settlement.

Do not unintentionally release the balance by signing broadly worded settlement documentation.

Settlement Against Security

Sometimes immediate payment is unrealistic.

A commercially sensible solution may involve installments secured by a bank guarantee or another reliable security mechanism.

For a large maritime receivable, an unsecured promise to pay over six months is substantially different from a properly secured settlement.

The creditor should focus on enforceability, not merely promises.

Wrongful Ship Arrest Risk

Ship arrest is powerful precisely because it can cause major losses.

That also means it should not be pursued recklessly.

The claimant must establish the statutory basis and should carefully verify debtor identity, vessel ownership and maritime-claim status.

An arrested party can challenge the arrest, and wrongful arrest may create damages exposure depending on the circumstances. (Global Practice Guides)

Do Not Arrest the Wrong Ship

Corporate names in shipping can be confusing.

A commercial group may control many vessels, each owned by a separate single-purpose company.

Common management, branding or beneficial ownership does not necessarily mean every vessel is legally owned by the debtor.

Before seeking arrest, the creditor should verify registered ownership and the statutory relationship required under Article 1369.

This is one of the most important steps in avoiding a wrongful-arrest dispute.

Foreign Shipping Companies Can Pursue Claims in Turkey

A foreign carrier does not need to abandon recovery simply because it has no Turkish subsidiary.

Where Turkish jurisdiction and procedural requirements are satisfied, foreign companies can pursue appropriate legal remedies through Turkish counsel.

For urgent maritime proceedings, preparing the foreign company’s power of attorney and corporate documents early can save critical time.

Practical Example: Freight Unpaid Before Cargo Delivery

Assume a foreign shipping company transports industrial machinery to Turkey.

USD 220,000 freight remains unpaid.

The consignee requests delivery and promises to pay after receiving the machinery.

Before releasing the cargo, the carrier should investigate whether it can lawfully exercise its retention right.

Turkish maritime law recognizes a carrier’s retention mechanism over cargo for qualifying carriage receivables while the relevant possession and statutory conditions continue. (Erdem & Erdem)

Obtaining payment or acceptable security before surrendering possession may be substantially safer than attempting unsecured recovery afterward.

Practical Example: Charterer Owes USD 800,000

Assume a foreign charterer accumulates USD 800,000 in unpaid amounts and ignores repeated demands.

The creditor discovers that a vessel potentially connected with the liable entity is scheduled to arrive at a Turkish port.

Counsel should immediately determine whether the debt qualifies as a maritime claim, who is legally liable, who owns the vessel and whether Article 1369 permits arrest.

If the conditions are satisfied, an arrest application may provide security while the substantive dispute proceeds in the contractually agreed forum. (Global Practice Guides)

Practical Example: Consignee Refuses Freight Because of Damage

Assume the consignee owes EUR 90,000 freight but claims EUR 150,000 cargo damage.

The carrier should not automatically concede that nothing is payable.

The cargo claim should be investigated independently.

Survey reports, delivery records, bills of lading and notices should be reviewed.

The legal availability of set-off should then be determined under the applicable contractual and governing-law framework.

Practical Example: Debtor Has No Vessel

Suppose a Turkish logistics company owes substantial freight but owns no ships.

Ship arrest may obviously not provide the solution.

The creditor should instead investigate bank accounts, commercial receivables and other assets potentially available through ordinary enforcement procedures.

Maritime debt recovery should focus on the debtor’s real assets, not simply on the maritime label attached to the transaction.

First 24 Hours After Freight Default

For a substantial unpaid freight claim, the creditor should immediately secure the charterparty, bill of lading, booking confirmation, invoices, statements of account and payment correspondence.

The debtor’s exact corporate identity should be verified.

If cargo remains in the carrier’s possession, retention rights should be examined before delivery.

If a qualifying vessel is in or approaching Turkey, ownership and arrest conditions should be checked immediately.

If neither cargo nor a vessel provides security, Turkish bank accounts, receivables and other debtor assets should be investigated through the appropriate enforcement strategy.

The strongest maritime recovery files are usually those in which security is considered before the asset disappears.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a foreign shipping company recover unpaid freight in Turkey?

Yes, potentially. The correct procedure depends on the contract, debtor, jurisdiction provisions, available security and assets located in Turkey.

Can the carrier keep the cargo until freight is paid?

Turkish maritime law recognizes a carrier’s right of retention over cargo for qualifying receivables arising from the carriage contract, subject to statutory requirements. (Erdem & Erdem)

Is unpaid freight a maritime claim?

Claims arising from maritime carriage contracts fall within Turkey’s maritime-claim framework relevant to precautionary ship arrest. (Global Practice Guides)

Can any vessel be arrested for unpaid freight?

No. Maritime-claim status alone is insufficient. The requirements governing the liable person, vessel ownership and other circumstances under TCC Article 1369 must also be satisfied. (Tim Drayton)

Can a sister ship be arrested?

Potentially, where the requirements of TCC Article 1369(2) are satisfied. (Global Practice Guides)

Is counter-security required for ship arrest?

Generally yes. Current Turkish shipping practice reports standard counter-security of SDR 10,000, subject to the court’s authority to adjust it. (Global Practice Guides)

Can the vessel be released against security?

Yes. Security can be provided to obtain release, subject to the court and applicable procedural requirements. (Global Practice Guides)

What if the debtor owns no ship?

The creditor should investigate ordinary enforcement against other assets such as bank accounts and third-party receivables rather than relying solely on maritime arrest.

What if the freight contract contains foreign arbitration?

The substantive dispute may need to proceed in the agreed arbitral forum. Turkish provisional remedies should nevertheless be considered separately where a qualifying maritime claim and asset are present in Turkey.

Should the carrier release cargo against a promise of later payment?

That can significantly weaken the carrier’s practical position. Before surrendering cargo, the carrier should examine whether a statutory retention right exists and consider requiring payment or reliable security.

Maritime Debt Recovery for Foreign Shipping Companies in Turkey

Recovering unpaid freight in Turkey requires more than sending repeated invoices.

The most important question is often:

What can secure the claim right now?

If the cargo remains under the carrier’s control, Turkish law’s cargo-retention mechanism should be examined before delivery. If a qualifying maritime claim exists and an arrestable vessel is in Turkey, precautionary ship arrest may provide powerful security. If no relevant vessel exists, ordinary enforcement against bank accounts, receivables and other debtor assets may be more appropriate. (Global Practice Guides)

The creditor must also identify the correct debtor. In shipping transactions, the shipper, consignee, charterer, freight forwarder and vessel owner are legally distinct parties. Arresting the wrong vessel or pursuing the wrong company can turn a strong freight claim into an expensive procedural dispute.

For high-value freight claims, speed matters. Ships depart, cargo is delivered and corporate assets move. The recovery strategy should therefore be prepared as soon as payment default becomes apparent.

Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office assists foreign shipowners, carriers, shipping companies and international maritime businesses with unpaid freight recovery in Turkey, charterparty receivables, unpaid hire, demurrage and detention claims, cargo retention, ship arrest, enforcement proceedings, debtor asset attachment, foreign judgment enforcement and maritime arbitration-related security proceedings 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