In shipping law, in rem proceedings are unique as a claim may be brought against the ship itself as a separate legal entity rather than the owner personally. This is what allows a ship to be arrested and used as security for such a claim.

Earlier this year, the Singapore High Court in The “Yangtze Harmony” [2026] SGHC 3 clarified an unanswered question: whether the court can lift a “stay” on in rem proceedings – which had earlier been put on hold in favor of arbitration. The court has now confirmed that it can. This means that if a party wins an arbitration, it can return to court and enforce the award as a judgment against the ship or its judicial sale proceeds.

Multi-disciplinary law firm Helmsman LLC focuses on the significance of the “Yangtze Harmony” judgment in enforcing arbitral awards in rem proceedings:

MT: How are arbitration claims against ships usually enforced in Singapore?

In shipping disputes, it is common for a claimant to start court proceedings against a ship to arrest the ship as security, even though the dispute is to be decided by arbitration. These proceedings are then stayed, pending the arbitration’s conclusion, while the claim remains secured in the form of (a) the arrested ship, or (b) its sale proceeds, or (c) any alternate form of security (such as a bank guarantee or an insurer’s letter of undertaking).

Ordinarily, arbitration awards are enforceable only against the parties named in the award (i.e. in personam). If a shipowner fails to pay, the award holder must enforce the award against the shipowner. The significance of the Yangtze Harmony judgment is that it allows an award holder to enforce the award directly against the ship which it previously arrested. This is crucial for cases against one-ship companies where the ship (or its sale proceeds) may be the only meaningful asset for recovery.

MT: If a ship is sold, where do bunker claims rank in getting paid?

While the decision makes enforcement easier, it does not affect the priority in which sale proceeds are distributed. In Singapore, judicial sale proceeds generally satisfy claims in an order of priorities. Higher ranking claims such as dues, Sheriff costs and secured claims are paid first.

A claim for bunkers supplied for a ship’s operation or maintenance are typically considered a statutory lien claim, which ranks at the bottom of the priorities ladder. Bunker suppliers are only paid from whatever funds remain and they share this equally with other similar claimants. A bunker supplier may not know what other high ranking claims exist until after the vessel is arrested or sold. If those claims are substantial, there may be little or nothing left to satisfy bunker claims.

MT: Can bunker suppliers improve their chances of getting paid?

The court has the power to alter the order of priorities when it is equitable to do so, but it is rare and requires evidence of exceptional circumstances. Ordinarily, a claim for the price of unpaid bunkers would not meet this threshold.

While the Yangtze Harmony brings welcome clarity to allow enforcement of arbitral awards as in rem judgments, this does not guarantee recovery, given the risk of priorities. Bunker suppliers in particular should carefully assess the likelihood of being paid in the event of a judicial sale before taking steps such as arresting a ship.

Photo credit: Helmsman
Published: 17 June, 2026

Panama-flagged cargo ship Ashico Symphony was arrested in Singapore waters on Saturday (6 June).

The vessel was added to the list of vessels under Sheriff’s arrest in Singapore’s court system. 

According to the list, the vessel was arrested at 4.40pm and the arresting solicitor listed was law firm CLASIS LLC. The ship is currently held at Eastern Anchorage / 5417C. 

No details were provided in the list regarding the reason behind the arrest.

Photo credit: MarineTraffic / Binh Thien
Published: 10 June, 2026

The Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA) on Thursday (7 May) said it detained two foreign tugboats in eastern waters of Johor for illegally transporting and storing an undocumented oil cargo, believed to be marine gas oil (MGO). 

Johor MMEA acting director Maritime Captain Kama Azri Kamil said the total value of the seized tugboats and MGO was worth MYR 19.55 million (USD 5 million). 

He said the first tugboat was detained around 10.50 pm at 1.5 nautical miles southeast off Tanjung Bulat before another vessel was detained about 40 minutes later at 3 nautical miles southeast of the same area.

“The investigation found, both tug boats were registered in Tanzania and operated by 10 Indonesians aged between 26 and 54 years,” said Captain Kama Azri. 

“Initial investigation found that the vessels failed to report arrival when entering the country’s waters, in total violation of Article 10 of the Port Rules 1954.”

Captain Kama Azri added that initial investigation found the tugboats had failed to report their arrival to Malaysian authorities when entering the country’s waters. 

In addition, there were suspicious modifications to the vessels’ tanks including the water tank being modified to an oil storage tank.

The case is being investigated under the Customs Act 1967 while all crew members were detained under Section 51(5)(b) of the Immigration Act 1959/1963 to help further investigation.

Photo credit: Malaysian Maritime Enforcement Agency
Published: 8 May, 2026