In Marchand Navigation Co v Olam Global Agri Pte Ltd and Anor [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 92, Marchand Navigation Co, the disponent owner of Maria Theo 1, chartered the vessel to Sinco Shipping Pte Ltd under a New York Produce Exchange (\u201cNYPE\u201d) 1946 time charterparty. Sinco sub-chartered the vessel to Olam Global Agri Pte Ltd under a voyage charterparty, where demurrage of US$190,112 was incurred.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Marchand had paid US$406,401.47 for bunkers on Sinco\u2019s behalf, fearing vessel arrest, and sought to enforce a lien on sub-freights under Clause 18 of the time charterparty to recover this sum. Olam, the sub-charterer, acknowledged the outstanding demurrage but was unsure whether to pay Marchand or Sinco. Sinco objected to the lien, citing an arbitration clause in the time charterparty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
i. Whether Marchand\u2019s payment of bunkers for Sinco was an \u201camount due under the charter\u201d, allowing the lien on sub-freights to be exercised.
ii. Whether Sinco\u2019s dispute over the bunker payment required arbitration, thereby preventing Marchand from enforcing the lien against Olam.
iii. Whether the presence of an arbitration clause between Marchand and Sinco affected Olam\u2019s obligation as a sub-charterer, given that Olam was not a party to the time charterparty?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2022 The court held that Clause 18 of the NYPE 1946 charterparty created a valid lien on sub-freights, which functioned like a floating charge and could extend to Marchand\u2019s bunker payment claim.
\u2022 The phrase \u201cany amounts due under this charter\u201d was broad enough to include the bunker costs since Sinco was contractually responsible for fuel under the charterparty.
\u2022 The arbitration clause did not prevent Marchand from enforcing its lien against Olam, as Olam was not bound by the arbitration agreement between Marchand and Sinco.
\u2022 Olam was entitled to discharge its debt to Sinco by paying Marchand, since Marchand had properly exercised the lien.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u2022 Owners can exercise a lien on sub-freights to recover charterers\u2019 unpaid obligations, even if the dispute between owner and charterer is subject to arbitration.
\u2022 Sub-charterers must comply with lien notices if issued validly, as paying the wrong party may expose them to double liability.
\u2022 Charterers disputing a lien must act promptly and initiate arbitration, rather than rely on an arbitration clause to block payment.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In Marchand Navigation Co v Olam Global Agri Pte Ltd and Anor [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 92, the Singapore High Court upheld the owners\u2019 right to enforce a lien on sub-freights under Clause 18 of the NYPE 1946 charterparty, ruling that the phrase \u2018any amounts due under this charter\u2019 was broad enough to cover unpaid bunker costs. Despite an arbitration clause between the owners and charterers, the sub-charterer was obligated to honor the lien, as it was not a party to the arbitration agreement. This decision reinforces that a properly exercised lien on sub-freights can be an effective tool for owners to recover unpaid sums, even in the presence of disputes between charterers and sub-charterers.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5770,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1576],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5769","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-admiralty"],"yoast_head":"\n