As the logistics industry continues to thrive, and with mobility being a key pillar of Expo 2020, our latest edition of Law Update looks at the Transport and Logistics sector. An area that is integral to the business and consumer supply chain because it impacts all aspects of the products and services we consume.
From expert commentary to great insights, this edition of Law Update is brimming with an interesting mix of articles ranging from maritime, aviation, insurance, and other industry insights that you don’t want to miss.
We hope this edition of Law Update provides some valuable food for thought – enjoy the read!Take a read of the edition
Tariq Idais - Senior Associate
This article is an overview of a Sharjah Court of First Instance judgment in relation to ship arrests for unpaid bunker supply charges in circumstances whereby the arresting party was the ships’ former owner as well as the physical bunker supplier of the said ships.
The question before the Court was whether the former owner of the ships was entitled to arrest the ships as the bunker supplier, even though the bunkers were supplied to the ships upon the bareboat charterer’s request while the former owner owned the ships and ownership of the ships changed after supplying the ships with the bunkers.
In this matter, Al Tamimi and Company represented the ships’ former owner/physical supplier.
In 2013, a bunkering company (the ‘Former Owner’) chartered four of its ships to a shipping company (the ‘Charterer’) under four bareboat charter-party agreements until 14 June 2014. During the charter-party agreements, the Former Owner had been supplying the four ships with bunkers upon the Charterer’s request.
On 16 June 2014, the Former Owner sold the four ships to a shipping company (the ‘New Owner’).
On 24 June 2014, the New Owner chartered the four ships to the same Charterer under four bareboat charter-party agreements for a period of three years.
After selling the ships, the Former Owner supplied the four ships with bunkers on 16, 17, 19 and 22 June 2014 while the ships were in the New Owner’s possession and continued to supply the ships with bunkers upon the Charterer’s request.
The value of the bunkers that were supplied by the Former Owner before the ships’ sale as well as after the ships’ sale was in the region of US$ 2,583,46 (‘Bunker Price’). However, the New Owner and the Charterers did not pay the Bunker Price.
In July 2015, the Former Owner (the ‘Claimant’) obtained arrest orders from the Sharjah Summary Judge over the four ships for the unpaid Bunker Price. The arrest orders were executed successfully over three out of the four ships (the fourth ship had left the relevant port before the arrest could be executed).
The Claimant then brought a substantive claim before the Sharjah Court of First Instance against the New Owner (the ‘First Defendant’) and the Charterer (the ‘Second Defendant’) seeking the Bunker Price, validation of the arrest order against the ships, and legal interest at the rate of 12 percent as of the date of maturity until the date of full payment.
The First Defendant alleged before the Court that it does not have a legal capacity to be sued in this case on the following grounds:
Therefore, the First Defendant petitioned the Court to dismiss the claim for lack of capacity and/or evidence.
Moreover, the First Defendant filed a counterclaim against the Claimant and Second Defendant for the ships’ wrongful arrests seeking damages in the sum of US$ 20,000,000.
The Second Defendant argued that the claim against it should be dismissed, as the charter-party agreements included an arbitration clause and there is already an arbitration proceeding ongoing between the First and Second Defendants in relation to the charter-party. Therefore, the Sharjah Court does not have the jurisdiction to decide upon the matter.
Alternatively, the Second Defendant argued that the First Defendant should be liable for the Bunker Price, as the bunkers were supplied to its ships and under Maritime Commercial Law ships amount to collateral for the amount owed.
The Claimant argued that the arguments of the Defendants should be ignored for the following reasons:
Therefore, the arrest orders over the ships were lawful. The ships must guarantee their debts regardless of who requested the bunkers, hence the Defendants’ arguments must be ignored and the counterclaim must be dismissed.
I. In relation to the Claimant’s Claim:
The Court found that the arrest orders over the ships complied with Articles 84, 115, 117, 254 of the Maritime Commercial Law and were therefore lawful. In addition, the Court held that since the bunkers were supplied to the ships upon the Second Defendant’s request and there was no contractual relationship between the Claimant and the First Defendant in relation to the supplied bunkers, the First Defendant should not be liable for the Bunker Price. Accordingly, the Court decided the following:
II. In relation to the Counter Claim
The Court decided to dismiss the counterclaim against the Claimant because the arrest orders of the ships complied with the Maritime Commercial Law. Furthermore, the Court found that since the counterclaim against the Second Defendant related to another arbitration proceeding between the First and the Second Defendants in relation to the charterparty agreements, the counterclaim should be dismissed against the Second Defendant.
The First Defendant filed appeals before the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court challenging the Court of First Instance’s judgment. All the parties stressed their previous arguments before both higher Courts. Both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court upheld the Court of First Instance’s judgment, which was issued in relation to the Claimant’s claim. However, the Court of Appeal revoked the Court of First Instance’s judgment in relation to the counterclaim and held the Second Defendant liable to pay the First Defendant the sum of AED 3,000,000 in damages since the ships were lawfully arrested by the Claimant, and consequently the Second Defendant was liable to pay the Bunker Price.
This judgment emphasises the fact that ships could always be liable for bunker supply charges regardless of who requested the bunkers for the ships, be it the shipowner/ manager/operator/charterer/ship agent.
What was interesting in this judgment is that the Former Owner was successful in arresting the ships for certain debts, which arose while it was the owner of the ships, and the ships were under bareboat charter-party agreements at the time of the bunkers supply. Furthermore, the Court refused the counterclaim for wrongful arrest against the Former Owner.
Moreover, this judgment confirms the fact that if the ship is arrested for charterers’ debts, the ship owners will be entitled to file a claim against the charterers for all losses and damages that they suffered during the ship arrest.