Connect with us

Legal

Are your charterparties ready for the IMO 2020 Sulphur Cap?

Simonsen Vogt Wiig covers transitional period and allocation of responsibility and cost in charter agreements.

Admin

Published

on

5c454834848b3 1548044340

Lawyers from Norwegian firm Simonsen Vogt Wiig has shared an article with Manifold Times for shipowners keen on understanding the allocation of responsibility and cost in charter agreements during the IMO 2020 transitional period:

There is a plethora of publication on the new 2020 Sulphur Cap under the IMO MARPOL Annex VI "Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships". Whether compliance is achieved by burning low sulphur fuel or by installing the famous 'scrubbers', the scene is already set. What might still not be set is the manner in which current and prospective charterparties are to regulate the resultant compliance cost and operational challenges amongst their parties.

1. The 2020 Sulphur Cap

The new sulphur limit under the IMO MARPOL Annex VI "Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships" (the Sulphur Cap) will come into force on 1 January 2020. Thereafter, ships will have to burn fuel with a sulphur content of no more than 0.50% (against the current limit of 3.50%). This applies to both main and auxiliary engines and boilers on board the ship.

The three options for ships to be compliant with the new Sulphur Cap are (i) use of compliant low sulphur fuel (LSFO), (ii) to install exhaust gas cleaning system (EGCS or scrubbers); or (iii) to replace the power units to use LNG or LPG as fuel. As of today, the most common responses to the new Sulphur Cap are the first two.

2. The Sulphur Cap in the context of chartering

2.1.    General
The focus in this article is on the transitional period and the allocation of responsibility and cost in charter agreements, which owners and charterers should consider both in respect of existing charters (and any amendments to such) and for new charters.

The 2020 Sulphur Cap will very likely result in an increase in the prices for LSFO which in turn might result in increased costs for owners and charterers and ultimately the consumers (and it will not be the first time if the spread of such cost-increases fail to be evenly absorbed). Whereas, the retrofitting of scrubbers on ships will initially be a cost for the owners to cover, while it remains to be seen to what extent such costs will ultimately result in higher charter rates.

2.2.    Bunker availability

For those owners and operators that opted for LSFO-compliance, certain parameters are yet to be ascertained; firstly as to whether there will be sufficient LSFO available, and secondly whether LSFO will be globally available. While larger ports are readying to cater compliant fuel, smaller or more remote ports may be subject to supply disruption or may lack adequate bunkering infrastructure for the requisite reserves. This too might result in price increases, and might also present potential issues with regard to the practicalities of bunkering.

Market surveys suggest that close to 90% of shipping companies are expected to opt for compliant fuel in order to meet the Sulphur Cap. For those that opted for scrubber-compliance, so far in 2019, it does not appear that scrubbers have been fitted as broadly as expected, and it is up to speculation whether HSFO will be as widely available as, or at a lower cost than, LSFO.

2.3.    Removal of non-compliant fuel

Any remaining non-compliant fuel on board the ship after January 1st, 2020 should be removed no later than redelivery under a charter, or 1 March 2020 – whichever comes first. This could be an issue as to what volume and on what price are HSFO bunkers to be settled on redelivery, unless already regulated in such charters.

BIMCO has published two Sulphur Cap bunker-related clauses; the "Global Marine Fuel Sulphur Clause for Time Charter Parties" (Compliance Clause), and the "2020 Transitional Fuel Clause" (Transition Clause).  These two new bunker clauses are designed to regulate the obligations of charterers and owners to deal with general compliance and the transitional period. For example, according to the Compliance Clause, the removal of non-compliant fuel should be done at the charterers’ cost and time, while the cleaning of the tanks must be done at the cost of the owners. The Transition Clause deals with the transitional period from the end of 2019 to the beginning of 2020 and focuses on cooperation between owners and charterers to minimise quantities of non-compliant fuel on board by 31 December 2019.

It should also be noted that the IMO has now formally adopted a total ban on the carriage of non-compliant fuel after 1 March 2020, for ships not fitted with scrubbers (or alternative technology).

2.4.    Redelivery issues

There are several issues relating to the Sulphur Cap to be addressed in respect of redelivery under a charter. Some issues may arise under already existing charters that will continue after the Sulphur Cap is in force, some issues will arise for charters where redelivery is scheduled for the time on or about January 2020 and some issues should be addressed for new charters to be entered into. These issues could be (amongst other);
 

i. The Owners’ obligation to buy back unused bunkers from the charterer. If redelivery takes place on or about January 2020, would that obligation to buy back unused bunkers extend to non-compliant fuel? If the answer to that is yes, at what price? If the ship is not fitted with a scrubber at the time of redelivery the buy back and the unused bunker may have very little value for the owner. 

ii.  The quantity of bunkers on redelivery should be enough to enable the ship to reach a bunkering port with available compliant fuel.

iii.   The availability of compliant fuel should be considered when negotiating the redelivery range specified in the charter party.

iv.   For ships with fitted scrubbers, the discharge of wastewater effluent from open loop scrubbers, and waste from closed loop scrubbers, will be an added concern that will involve time and cost. An issue of who should cover the cost related to such discharge will eventually surface if not addressed already.

2.5.    Installation, maintenance and repair of scrubbers

In the context of ships retrofitted with scrubbers to comply with the 2020 Sulphur Cap, owners and charterers should ensure that any charterparty entered into, adequately allocates responsibility for installation, maintenance and repair. BIMCO has announced that a standard Scrubber clause is due to be published around March – April 2019. The clause is likely to address possible installation–cost-sharing between owners and charterers, with formulas potentially reflecting the life of the scrubber and/or the remaining duration of the charterparty. The clause might also deal with scrubber breakdown, and impose requirements for the carriage of a reserve of LSFO, to mitigate any off-hire as a result of such breakdown.

Owners and charterers should additionally review dry-docking and off-hire clauses (in the context of time charterparties), and laytime and demurrage clauses (in the context of voyage charterparties), to ensure that those clauses clearly allocate responsibility for time and costs spent on installation, maintenance, repair or any issues resulting from scrubber performance.

A further consideration for owners, in the context of ships able to both burn LSFO and being retrofitted with a scrubber, is the extent to which charterers may use HSFO fuel with scrubbers, instead of sourcing compliant fuel under the contract, and to what extent charterers should bear the additional energy consumption costs incurred as a result.

2.6.    Insurance

Owners should also be aware of the potential consequences the 2020 Sulphur Cap could have for their Hull and Machinery and Protection and Indemnity insurance coverage. If a ship fails to comply with the requirements of the 2020 Sulphur Cap, then it would effectively be in breach of the flag state national law and the ship’s MARPOL certificate may be withdrawn, or at least suspended, by the flag state. If this occurs, and the ship is deemed to be unseaworthy, or no longer in class, as a result of non-compliance with the 2020 Sulphur Cap, owners may be considered to have breached seaworthiness, class or other warranties under their Hull and Machinery or Protection and Indemnity policies. If these breaches are determined to define the risk as a whole, UK insurers, at least, will be entitled to avoid liability for losses that would otherwise be covered under a policy.

3. Summary

The 2020 Sulphur Cap coming into force on January 1st 2020 gives rise to a number of contractual and practical issues that might require a review of the relevant contractual documentation between owners and charterers, including charterparties. The contractual and practical issues can ultimately result in claims for unseaworthiness; claims for the costs of deviation required to take on compliant fuel; off-spec bunker claims; and disputes over payment of redelivered fuel, as well as financial penalties, to mention a few. The parties need to address the potential conflicts and proactively agree on clauses that clearly allocate the risk and cost responsibility and indemnification between the contractual parties.

We have been working with our clients, both owners and charterers, in reviewing their current (and planning their prospective) charters, in striking a balance between compliance and pragmatic solutions, in relation to the 2020 Sulphur Cap. For further information on this topic, please contact Yannis Litinas and Camilla Flatum.

Contact details:
Yannis Litinas
Partner – English Solicitor 
Email: [email protected] 
Mob: +47 912 46 775
Tel: +47 22 31 32 40

Camilla Flatum
Senior Lawyer – Norwegian Attorney 
Email: [email protected] 
Mob: +47 950 22 085
Tel: +47 22 31 32 68

Simonsen Vogt Wiig, with its roots as far back as 1894, is an international commercial law firm with offices in Norway and Singapore. Our 180 lawyers provide assistance within all major industries, with increased specialisation and international recognition within Shipping, Banking, Aviation, Energy, Telecom-Media-Technology, Private Equity, Fintech, Fisheries, and all pertinent to those areas, including corporate, M&A, financing, restructuring and insolvency, sanctions, and litigation.
www.svw.no 

Source: Simonsen Vogt Wiig
Published: 21 January, 2019

 

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

on

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

on

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

on

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