Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

ADMIRALTY IN REM – SHIPPING — FUEL OR FREIGHT? COURT CLEARS THE AIR ON GLOBAL FALCON BUNKER DISPUTE

Summary and Facts

In Global Falcon [2024] MLJU 1378, Meck Petroleum DMCC (“Meck”) supplied high-sulphur fuel oil (HSFO) to the vessel Global Falcon and subsequently claimed USD 1.3 million for unpaid bunkers. Meck initiated admiralty proceedings to arrest the vessel, asserting that the HSFO qualified as goods supplied for the vessel’s “operation or maintenance,” thus entitling them to a maritime lien.

However, the HSFO supplied had a sulphur content of 3.03%, exceeding regulatory limits for operational fuel use, and was loaded into the vessel’s cargo tanks rather than fuel tanks. The Global Falcon lacked scrubbers to process high-sulphur fuel, and the quantity of HSFO supplied was inconsistent with the vessel’s operational needs. Evidence later showed the HSFO was transferred to another vessel, indicating it was intended as cargo rather than operational fuel. Based on these factors, the court questioned if Meck’s claim met the admiralty jurisdiction requirements.

Legal Issues

  1. Qualification as Goods for Operation or Maintenance: Did the HSFO qualify as “goods or materials supplied for the operation or maintenance” of the vessel under Section 20(2)(m) of the UK Senior Courts Act 1981 (“UK SCA 1981”)?
  2. Admiralty Jurisdiction to Arrest the Vessel: Did the court have admiralty jurisdiction to arrest the vessel based on the HSFO supply?

Court Findings

  • The court concluded that the HSFO, with a 3.03% sulphur content exceeding operational fuel limits and loaded into cargo tanks, was not meant for the vessel’s operation or maintenance. This conclusion was supported by:
    • The vessel’s lack of scrubbers to utilize HSFO as fuel.
    • The quantity of HSFO supplied, which far exceeded the vessel’s operational fuel capacity.
    • Evidence showing the HSFO was discharged to another vessel, indicating it served as cargo, not operational fuel.
  • For admiralty jurisdiction to be valid, the claim must meet Section 20(2)(m) or (n) of the UK SCA 1981: “supplied to a ship for her operation or maintenance” or “for the construction or repair of equipment of a ship or in respect of dock charges or dues.”
  • The court held that Meck’s claim did not satisfy Section 20(2)(m) of the UK SCA 1981, as the HSFO was neither used nor intended for the vessel’s operation or maintenance. As a result, the court set aside the Warrant of Arrest, ordered the vessel’s immediate release, and granted the owners liberty to seek damages for wrongful arrest.

Reference Cases

  • Meck Petroleum DMCC v The Owners And/Or Demise Charterers Of The Ship Or Vessel “Global Falcon” Of The Port Of Cook Islands [2024] MLJU 1378
  • UK Senior Court Act 1981 Section 20(2)(m) & (n)
  • The River Rima [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Law Rep 193
  • Port of Geelong Authority v The Ship “Bass Reefer” 109 ALR 505
  • Supreme Court Act 1981

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us