Connect with us

Legal

Readiness for the global sulphur cap – BIMCO’s new IMO 2020 clauses

Wikborg Rein lawyers offer a legal perspective on strengths and weaknesses of BIMCO’s IMO 2020 clauses.
Admin

Published

7 years ago

on

5d36453713743 1563837751

The following article analysing the strength and weaknesses of BIMCO's new IMO 2020 clauses has been written by Andreas Fjaervoll-Larsen, Senior Lawyer, and Mads Odeskaug, Associate, of Norwegian law firm Wikborg Rein:

Most of those involved in the shipping industry will by now have a clear picture of the requirements under the IMO 2020 global sulphur cap on marine fuels. Attention has therefore turned to the steps that need to be taken to put those requirements into practice. Two clauses recently introduced by BIMCO are aimed at addressing certain contractual aspects of the IMO 2020 requirements as they apply to time charterparties.

There has been a significant amount of focus and discussion on the technical and commercial aspects of compliance with the reduction in the global sulphur cap from 3.5 % to 0.5 % which will come into force on 1 January 2020 pursuant to the IMO's MARPOL Annex VI ("IMO 2020"). There has also been much debate with respect to scrubbers and what the best technical solutions may be for compliance with IMO 2020. The contractual aspects of preparation for IMO 2020 have however arguably received less attention. Nonetheless, the allocation of risk and costs relating to compliance will still need to be regulated in charterparties, in particular in time charterparties, where the owners remain responsible for operating the vessel whilst the charter-ers are responsible for supplying fuel.

BIMCO has recently published two new standard clauses aimed at tackling some of these issues, namely the 2020 Marine Fuel Sulphur Content Clause and the 2020 Fuel Transition Clause.

The Marine Fuel Sulphur Content Clause

This clause deals with the allocation of responsibilities and obligations between charterers and owners with respect to the provision of bunkers that comply with the new IMO 2020 requirements. The clause replaces the BIMCO Fuel Sulphur Content Clause 2005, and forms part of BIMCO's Suite of Standard Bunker Clauses for Time Charter Parties.

In summary, the clause stipulates that charterers will be under an obligation to supply fuel which at all times complies with any applicable sulphur content requirements and that such fuel must comply with the specifications and grades set out elsewhere in the relevant charterparty. The charterers' responsibilities under the clause also extends to warranting that bunker suppliers comply with the sulphur content requirements.

Although the clause mainly places obligations on the charterers, the owners will nonetheless have to warrant that the vessel can comply with the sulphur content requirements.

The relevant sulphur content requirements are defined as "MARPOL Annex VI (as amended from time to time) and/or by any other applicable lawful authority" and therefore cover the applicable regulations from time to time, including the current global cap of 3.5 %, the new global cap of 0.5 % (once applicable), the 0.1 % limit in emission control areas (ECAs), particular regulations in port states and any amendments to the foregoing. The clause can therefore be incorporated into time charterparties today and will remain valid after the new IMO 2020 regime comes into force.

The Fuel Transition Clause

The fuel transition clause is not part of the Suite of Standard Bunker Clauses, but is intended to cover the one-off transitional period during the move from high to low sulphur fuels. It is therefore only relevant to time charterparties entered into prior to 1 January 2020 that extend beyond that date and where low sulphur fuels have not been required from day one.

The clause is not only intended to ensure that the vessel has compliant fuel onboard in time for 1 January 2020, but also deals with issues arising with respect to the prohibition of carriage of non-compliant IMO bunkers from 1 March 2020 – the so called "carriage ban".

In brief, the clause provides that charterers prior to 1 January 2020 are under an obligation to supply the vessel with sufficient compliant fuel to reach the nearest bunkering port where compliant fuel is available and requires owners and charterers to "use reasonable endeavours so that no later than 1 January 2020 there shall be no non-compliant fuel carried by the vessel". With regard to the carriage ban, it stipulates that no later than 1 March 2020, there shall be no non-compliant fuel onboard the vessel. The disposal of non-compliant fuel shall be at the charterers' time, risk and cost, whilst the obligation of ensuring that the vessel's bunker tanks are ready to receive compliant fuel is at the owners' time, risk and cost.

The third and missing BIMCO clause – scrubbers

BIMCO was also expected to issue a "scrubber clause" in early 2019 which was expected to address issues arising with respect to the cost, installation and use of scrubbers, and potentially regulate off-hire events resulting from the breakdown of scrubbers. The clause has, however, not yet been published.

Comment

The new BIMCO clauses attempt to address several of the key contractual issues relating to compliance with IMO 2020. However, as with all standard clauses, their inclusion in charterparties should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and it should always be considered if they are suitable to be included in their original unamended form or if amendments are required. We expect to see bespoke and tailored versions of the clauses being used.

From a drafting point of view, the consequences of breaching the new clauses are not dealt with in the clauses themselves and will have to be regulated elsewhere in the relevant charterparty. The inclusion of the new clauses may also require re-wording of other provisions in charterparties, for example bunker delivery/redelivery clauses should be carefully considered with respect to the types of fuels onboard and the prices to be paid – in particular for time charterparties spanning 1 January 2020 up to the carriage ban date of 1 March 2020.

The new clauses also require owners and charterers to cooperate to facilitate bunkering/debunkering operations. This is likely to result in disputes. Further, the requirement under the transition clause to use "reasonable endeavours" to ensure that there is no non-compliant fuel onboard by 1 January 2020 may prove difficult to enforce as the meaning of "reasonable endeavours" is open to interpretation under English law.

FACTS

  • BIMCO's Suite of Standard Bunker Clauses for Time Charter Parties deals with general issues relating to the specifications, grades and quality/suitability of the fuel provided by time charterer.
  • 2020 Marine Fuel Sulphur Content Clause deals with the basic obligation to comply with the sulphur content requirements of MARPOL Annex VI and other applicable regulations.
  • 2020 Fuel Transition Clause deals with the one-off event of switching between fuel with a maximum sulphur content of 3.50% and fuel with a maximum sulphur content of 0.50%.

Source: Wikborg Rein
Published: 23 July, 2019
 

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Vessel Arrest

Malaysia: MMEA detains two vessels over suspected illegal ship-to-ship transfer off Johor

Other than the vessels, MMEA also seized a cargo of oil, bringing the total value of the seizure to MYR 260 million (USD 61.9 million).
Admin

Published

2 days ago

on

September 3, 2026

By

Malaysia: MMEA detains two vessels over suspected illegal ship-to-ship transfer off Johor

The Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA) detained tugboat and dredger suspected of conducting an unauthorised ship-to-ship (STS) transfer in Malaysian waters.

The two Malaysian-registered vessels were detained at around 3.20am on Wednesday by an MMEA patrol boat after the agency received public information about two suspicious vessels seen operating alongside each other about 1.4 nautical miles northwest of Tanjung Buai.

MMEA Tanjung Sedili Zone Acting Director Maritime Commander Mohd Najib Sam said further inspection found that the tugboat was operated by five crew members, including its skipper, comprising Malaysian and Indonesian nationals aged between 26 and 58.

The dredger was operated by 13 crew members, including its skipper, all Malaysian nationals aged between 22 and 51.

“Further inspection also found a quantity of oil cargo believed to be without any documents relating to ownership and delivery,” Najib said.

Both vessels and the oil cargo have been seized for further investigation. The total value of the seizure, including the two vessels and the oil cargo, is estimated at MYR 260 million (USD 64 million).

The case is being investigated under Section 491B(1)(K) of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance (MSO) 1952 for allegedly conducting ship-to-ship activities without authorisation from the Malaysian Director of Marine.

The vessels are also being investigated under Section 491B(1)(L) of the MSO 1952 for allegedly anchoring without permission, as well as under the Customs Act 1967 in connection with the oil cargo suspected of lacking the required documentation.

 

Photo credit: Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency
Published: 3 September, 2026

Continue Reading

Bunker Claim

Rajah & Tann: Bunker disputes are won in the first 48 hours

Partner V Bala says bunker disputes depend heavily on evidence gathered in the first 48 hours, making disciplined preservation, accurate reporting and early expert involvement critical to protecting a claim or defence.
Admin

Published

3 days ago

on

September 2, 2026

By

Rajah & Tann: Bunker disputes are won in the first 48 hours

V Bala, a partner in Rajah & Tann Singapore’s Shipping & International Trade practice group, has highlighted the critical importance of preserving evidence in the first 48 hours of a bunker incident, outlining best practices for ship managers to protect potential claims and defences:

A vessel somewhere in the Indian Ocean reports abnormal fuel behaviour. Sludge is forming. Filters are clogging. Consumption looks wrong. Within hours, owners, charterers, managers, suppliers and insurers are exchanging messages. Everyone asks the same question: is there a claim? It is reasonable. It is also often premature. The better question is: what evidence will still exist in 48 hours to explain what happened?

For all the technical sophistication around modern bunker disputes, many are decided less by expert reports than by the first two days after trouble appears. The tribunal may sit years later. The factual foundation is usually laid before the vessel reaches its next port.

Bunker claims are commonly treated as technical contests about fuel specifications, ISO standards and competing laboratory results. They are that. But experienced litigators quickly notice a simpler pattern: the strongest cases are rarely built by the cleverest lawyers. They are built by the best recordkeepers.

The Vanishing Evidence Problem 

Unlike a collision, fire or grounding, bad bunkers leave few obvious visual traces. The evidence is scattered across tanks, samples, engine records, maintenance logs, performance data and electronic communications. Much of it can deteriorate, disappear or become contaminated with surprising speed.

A discarded sample cannot be recreated. A cleaned filter may tell a different story from one preserved immediately after failure. Electronic records overwritten in routine operations may never be recovered usefully. Crew change. Memories fade. The difficulty is that bunker incidents rarely feel like casualties when they first arise. They look like operational nuisances.

The Pressure to Move On 

A ship manager’s first duty is to keep the vessel trading. Engineers solve the immediate problem. Technical managers assess options. Owners watch delay. Charterers want assurance. The commercial pressure to restore normality is intense. It is also the moment when evidential mistakes are most easily made.

Fuel is blended before investigations are complete. Samples are mishandled. Machinery is repaired before it is properly photographed. Internal messages fill with theories. By the time experts arrive, the most useful evidence may already have changed.

The Danger of Instant Certainty 

Modern communication has made this harder. A concern raised in the engine room can reach executives across continents within minutes. The advantages are obvious. So are the risks.

The earliest explanations are often the least reliable. When machinery problems arise shortly after bunkering, the fuel is naturally blamed because it is the most visible recent change. Sometimes that is right. Sometimes it is not.

Yet once a theory enters circulation, it acquires momentum. Months later, early WhatsApp messages or emails written under pressure may be attached to witness statements, analysed by experts and scrutinised by lawyers. A passing operational remark can begin to look like a settled conclusion.

The Documentary Ship 

Shipping remains a documentary business. Despite digitalisation, disputes still turn on engine logs, maintenance reports, fuel transfer records, sounding measurements and superintendent correspondence.

What matters is not merely whether those records exist, but what story they tell together. Tribunals value contemporaneous documents because they were created before positions hardened. They are the closest thing to a real-time account.

Ship Managers at the Centre 

Ship managers sit at the centre of the network: owners, financiers, charterers, bunker suppliers, insurers and regulators. In bunker matters, their role now goes beyond technical operation. It includes preserving enough information to understand what happened if the matter becomes a claim.

What the Best Operators Do Differently 

If bunker disputes are won in the first 48 hours, what do the best operators do differently? They treat fuel incidents as evidential events as well as operational ones. While engineers restore function, someone asks: if this becomes a dispute, what will we wish we had preserved today?

They resist instant certainty. Communications distinguish facts from theories. There is a difference between recording that power loss followed consumption from a particular tank and declaring that the supplier delivered bad fuel.

They know samples are useful only if identity, seals, labels and custody can be proved. They keep samples alongside the full operational record: delivery documents, tank soundings, transfer history, engine logs, alarms, purifier settings, maintenance data and ship-to-shore messages.

They preserve physical evidence before routine work alters it. Filters, residues and affected components may contain information that disappears once cleaned or discarded. Photographs should capture the condition found, not just the condition after repair.

Finally, they bring the right expertise to the problem early. They also involve the right people early: surveyors, laboratories, technical experts, insurers and lawyers. A surveyor or technical expert can help identify what should be sampled, photographed, retained and recorded before the evidence changes. Lawyers and insurers can help ensure that notifications are made, communications remain measured and contractual deadlines are not overlooked. The point is not to turn every operational problem into litigation. It is to avoid discovering, months later, that the ingredients of a sound claim or defence were lost during the first voyage after the incident.

The first 48-hour discipline 

PRESERVE Segregate the suspect fuel where practicable. Secure representative samples, seals, labels and a documented chain of custody. Retain affected filters, residues and components before cleaning or disposal.
RECORD Capture tank soundings, transfer history, consumption sequence, engine parameters, alarms, purifier settings, maintenance data and photographs. Preserve original electronic records and contemporaneous logs.
COMMUNICATE Report observed facts, not untested conclusions. Keep a disciplined chronology of what happened, when it happened, who was informed and what action was taken.
NOTIFY Check contractual notice provisions and inform the relevant owner, charterer, supplier, manager, insurer or P&I club promptly. Delay can damage both evidence and rights.
DEPLOY Involve the appropriate surveyor, laboratory, technical expert and legal team before the condition of the evidence changes, not after positions have hardened.

The lesson is simple. In bunker disputes, the law often comes late. The evidence comes early. The party that preserves it calmly, completely and without premature blame gives itself the best chance of winning the argument when the dispute finally arrives.

 

Photo credit: Rajah & Tann Singapore
Published: 2 September, 2026

Continue Reading

Winding up

Singapore: Notices of intended dividend issued for Hua An Shipping and related firms

Creditors will need to produce proofs of debt to liquidators of Hua An Shipping, Hua Guang Shipping, Nan Hai Maritime, Nan Sia Maritime and Nan Zhou Maritime by 11 September.
Admin

Published

5 days ago

on

August 31, 2026

By

RESIZED Drew Beamer

Notices of intended dividend for Hua An Shipping Pte Ltd, Hua Guang Shipping Pte Ltd, Nan Hai Maritime Pte Ltd, Nan Sia Maritime Pte Ltd and Nan Zhou Maritime Pte Ltd were published on the Government Gazette on Friday (28 August). 

The following are the details of the notice of Hua An Shipping Pte. Ltd:

Name of Company : Hua An Shipping Pte. Ltd. (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation)
Unique Entity No. / Registration No. : 200610919Z
Address of Registered Office : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited, 8 Marina View, #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1, Singapore 018960
Last Day for Receiving Proofs : 11 September 2026 at 5:00 pm by email to [email protected]
Name of Liquidators : Paresh Tribhovan Jotangia and Ho May Kee
Address : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited, 8 Marina View, #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1, Singapore 018960

Details of the notice of intended dividend for Hua Guang Shipping Pte. Ltd are as follows:

Name of Company : Hua Guang Shipping Pte. Ltd. (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation)
Unique Entity No. / : 200610922R Registration No.
Address of Registered Office : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited 8 Marina View #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1 Singapore 018960
Last Day for Receiving Proofs : 11 September 2026 at 5:00 pm by email to [email protected]
Name of Liquidators : Paresh Tribhovan Jotangia and Ho May Kee
Address : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited 8 Marina View #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1 Singapore 018960

Details of the notice of intended dividend for Nan Hai Maritime Pte Ltd are as follows:

Name of Company : Nan Hai Maritime (Pte.) Ltd. (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation)
Unique Entity No. /Registration No. : 200814299M
Address of Registered Office : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited 8 Marina View #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1 Singapore 018960
Last Day for Receiving Proofs : 11 September 2026 at 5:00 pm by email to [email protected]
Name of Liquidators : Paresh Tribhovan Jotangia and Ho May Kee
Address : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private, Limited 8 Marina View #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1 Singapore 018960

Details of the notice of intended dividend for Nan Sia Maritime Pte Ltd are as follows:

Name of Company : Nan Sia Maritime (Pte.) Ltd. (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation)
Unique Entity No.  / Registration No.  : 200814320Z
Address of Registered Office : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited 8 Marina View #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1 Singapore 018960
Last Day for Receiving Proofs : 11 September 2026 at 5:00 pm by email to [email protected]
Name of Liquidators : Paresh Tribhovan Jotangia and Ho May Kee
Address : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited 8 Marina View #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1 Singapore 018960

Details of the notice of intended dividend for Nan Zhou Maritime Pte Ltd are as follows:

Name of Company : Nan Zhou Maritime (Pte.) Ltd. (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation)
Unique Entity No. / Registration No.: 200814295H
Address of Registered Office : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited, 8 Marina View, #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1, Singapore 018960
Last Day for Receiving Proofs : 11 September 2026 at 5:00 pm by email to [email protected]
Name of Liquidators : Paresh Tribhovan Jotangia and Ho May Kee
Address : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited, 8 Marina View, #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1, Singapore 018960

 

Photo credit: Drew Beamer

Published: 31 August, 2026

Continue Reading
Advertisement

OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS



Trending