Connect with us

Legal

“Bow Jubail” bunker spill: Owner could have controlled liability

It is the onus on a party seeking to limit liability to provide all information at early stage, says lawyer.
Admin

Published

8 years ago

on

5c109c65a357f 1544592485

The following article is written by Vivian van der Kuil, Partner at Rotterdam-based legal firm AKD NV, and shared with Singapore bunker publication Manifold Times; it was first published in the newsletter of the International Law Office.

Onus on party seeking to limit liability to provide all information at early stage

A case recently brought before the Rotterdam Court emphasises the importance of assessing at an early stage which liability regime applies when a party seeks to limit its exposure to claims in the event of an oil spill at sea.

Liability regimes

The limits of liability, as well as the claims to which limitation may apply, can vary greatly. The Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976 (LLMC) and the 1996 Protocol provide the general legal framework for limitation of liability. They allow a shipowner and certain other parties closely connected to the operation of the vessel to limit liability for a wide variety of claims, most importantly for claims in respect of loss of life, personal injury or loss of or damage to property occurring on board or in direct connection with the operation of the ship or with salvage operations, and consequential loss resulting therefrom.

In order to be able to rely on limitation of liability, a shipowner must file a request and then constitute a so-called 'limitation fund' – by putting up a guarantee or cash payment (depending on the jurisdiction where the fund is established) for the amount of the limited liability – which is calculated on the basis of the gross tonnage of the vessel.

The LLMC stipulates that the rules of the convention do not apply to claims for oil pollution damage within the meaning of the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1969 (CLC) or of any amendment or protocol thereto. The CLC and subsequent 1976 and 1992 Protocols introduced the system of strict liability for owners of seagoing vessels constructed or adapted for the carriage of oil in bulk as cargo, but only when the vessel is actually carrying oil in bulk as cargo or following such carriage unless it has proved that it has no residues of such carriage of oil in bulk on board.

The International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage (Bunker Convention) 2001, meanwhile, is modelled on the CLC and deals with damage caused by spills of oil when carried as ships' bunkers. Both conventions determine that the registered owner of a vessel is to maintain compulsory insurance cover and have the possibility of direct action which allows a claim for compensation for pollution damage to be brought directly against an insurer.

Rotterdam Court decision

A recent decision by the Rotterdam Court regarding a major oil spill in the port of Rotterdam caused by the vessel Bow Jubail in June 2018 underlines the need to assess the nature of the limitation regime which applies. (1)

The owner of the Bow Jubail, a seagoing vessel designed to carry oil and other cargoes in bulk, filed a request to limit liability based on the LLMC and the Bunker Convention. The Rotterdam Court asked the owner to clarify why the CLC was not applicable, even though the vessel qualified as a ship as described under the CLC (ie, designed to carry oil in bulk as cargo).

According to the owner, the Bow Jubail was at the time of the incident not carrying oil and had no residues of oil in bulk on board. However, the Rotterdam Court decided that, based on the information available, it could not be established that the Bow Jubail had no residues of oil in bulk on board, especially since the vessel's previous cargo had consisted of various persistent oils. In addition, the court emphasised that, in procedures concerning limitation of liability, it is the responsibility of the party seeking to rely on limitation to provide all of the information available at an early stage.

Comment

The request filed by the owner of the Bow Jubail was denied, resulting in unlimited liability at least until a new request based on the CLC was filed and decided upon. This could all have been avoided if an assessment had been made of the various limitation regimes and the differences between them.

For further information on this topic please contact Vivian van der Kuil at AKD NV by telephone (+31 88 253 5000) or email ([email protected]). The AKD website can be accessed at www.akd.nl.

Endnotes
(1) 9 November 2018, ECLI: RBROT:2018:9174.

Related: Odfjell faces EUR 80 million bill over Bow Jubail bunker spill
Related: Rotterdam Port Authority sues NCC over bunker spill
Related: UPDATE 3: Rotterdam bunker spill incident
Related: UPDATE 2: Rotterdam bunker spill incident
Related: UPDATE: Rotterdam bunker spill
Related: Odfjell apologies for Rotterdam bunker spill incident
Related: Bunker spill at Rotterdam, shipowner held responsible

Photo credit: Port of Rotterdam Authority
Published: 12 December, 2018
 

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