This case revolves around a dispute between Meck Petroleum DMCC, a UAE-based company specializing in marine services, and the owners of the vessel Global Falcon. The issue pertains to the supply of 2,699.740 metric tons of high-sulfur fuel oil (HSFO) at the Port of Khorfakkan, UAE. Meck Petroleum claimed $1,301,345.39 for unpaid HSFO, asserting it was provided as bunkers for the vessel’s operation and maintenance. The defendants denied this, contending the HSFO was cargo for resale and not intended for the vessel’s use.
The court examined the applicability of admiralty jurisdiction under Section 20(2)(m) and (n) of the UK Senior Courts Act 1981, which governs claims involving goods or materials supplied for a vessel’s operation. The defendants argued the HSFO, loaded into cargo tanks, exceeded the vessel’s bunker capacity and was unsuitable for use due to its sulfur content, which violated MARPOL regulations. The vessel lacked the required scrubber to utilize such fuel, further supporting their position.
Documentary evidence, including the bunker delivery receipt and sales confirmation, was scrutinized. While these referred to the HSFO as bunkers, the court found the evidence insufficient to prove the fuel was intended for the vessel’s operation. The plaintiff’s reliance on the vessel master’s acknowledgment of receipt was deemed inadequate.
The court concluded the HSFO was supplied as cargo and not for the vessel’s use, invalidating the plaintiff’s claim to invoke admiralty jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ of arrest was set aside, and the vessel was released. The court also granted the defendants the liberty to seek damages for wrongful arrest, with costs fixed at RM 25,000 awarded to the defendants.
This case underscores the critical importance of accurately defining the purpose of supplied goods in maritime disputes.
Click here to download this case study as pdf