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

Multi-disciplinary law firm Helmsman LLC examines the interaction between charterers’ rights to direct where a vessel goes and shipowners’ responsibility for navigation under a time charter.  

MT: Under a time charter, do charterers or shipowners decide where the vessel goes?

Generally under a time charter, it is charterers who decide where the vessel goes for commercial purposes, while shipowners and the master remain responsible for the navigation of the vessel. This is subject to the wording of the charterparty.

This principle is reflected in the standard time charterparty forms, including NYPE 93 and Baltime 1939. Clause 8 of NYPE 93 provides that the Master shall be under charterers’ “orders and directions … as regards employment and agency”, while clause 9 of Baltime 1939 likewise provides that the master “shall be under the orders of the Charterers as regards employment, agency or other arrangements.”

As explained in The “Hill Harmony” [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 147, “employment” refers to the vessel’s commercial use, i.e. the charterers’ right to direct where she goes, what cargo she carries, and how her earning capacity is to be exploited. Whereas “navigation” concerns the seamanship and safe operation of the ship.

MT: Is an order to transit the Strait of Hormuz a valid employment order? When can shipowners refuse? 

An order to proceed to a port located within the Strait of Hormuz or to take a specific route through the Strait of Hormuz is in principle capable of being characterised as an employment order, subject to the charterparty wording. The choice of an ocean route is generally viewed as a matter of employment rather than navigation. As discussed in The “Hill Harmony”, charterers may order the ship to proceed to a certain port or waiting place, and they may also be entitled to direct the particular route the vessel should take.

That said, an order is not automatically valid just because it relates to employment. For example, under NYPE 93, the vessel is to be employed in lawful trades “between safe ports and safe places” as charterers direct. This means that an order that would require the vessel to proceed outside agreed trading limits, or to an unsafe port or place, would fall outside charterers’ contractual right to give orders in relation to employment.

Coming then to when shipowners may refuse. In principle, shipowners may refuse where compliance would require the vessel to perform an illegitimate order under the charterparty. For example, an order to proceed outside trading limits or an order to proceed to an unsafe port or place. Shipowners may also refuse to comply where performance of the order would imperil the safety of the vessel, her crew, or her cargo, or would expose the vessel to a risk which shipowners had not agreed to bear under the charterparty.

MT: If shipowners choose to comply and suffer loss, can they recover from charterers?

The starting point is always the charterparty. Some forms contain an express indemnity, for example, clause 9 of Baltime 1939.

Absent such wording, English law recognises an implied indemnity in principle where shipowners can rely on an implied right to be indemnified against losses incurred in compliance with charterers’ orders. But recovery is not automatic: Shipowners cannot recover for risks which, on the proper construction of the charterparty, they agreed to bear.

In some cases, if charterers insist on an extra-contractual service and shipowners perform under protest, shipowners may also seek payment on a quantum meruit basis for the market value of services rendered.

MT: How might war risk clauses affect the position of both parties?

War risks clauses may significantly affect both parties’ positions by restricting charterers’ usual right to order the vessel wherever they wish and by giving shipowners contractual rights to refuse or alter performance where war risks arise. For example, BIMCO has very recently updated CONWARTIME in 2025, with the last iteration of CONWARTIME being in 2013.

For charterers, that means an otherwise valid order may not be enforceable if (as provided for in CONWARTIME) “in the reasonable judgment of the Master or the Owners” may be dangerous or may become dangerous to the vessel, her cargo, crew or other persons on board the vessel.

For shipowners, the clause may justify refusal of a risky route, continuation of the voyage by a safer route, and/or recovery of additional war risk premiums and crew costs. But this protection is not absolute. Shipowners must still act reasonably and in good faith: see The “Triton Lark” [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 151.

MT: If any, what are the practical takeaways? 

Shipowners and charterers will need to carefully consider whether an employment order is valid or can be refused. Much turns on the charterparty wording and the facts of the case. Parties should check the trading limits, safe port wording, war risks clause and any indemnity provisions carefully. It is therefore important for both shipowners and charterers to seek timely legal advice when in doubt as regards transit through volatile regions such as the Strait of Hormuz.

Photo credit: Helmsman
Published: 4 May, 2026

Asia Pacific Maritime (APM) 2026 will take place between 25 – 27 March 2026 at Marina Bay Sands, Singapore. Toby Stephens, Head of Shipping, Asia, HFW, speaks with Manifold Times prior to his session: “Panel Discussion: Shipping Insurance in an Age of New Risk” on 27 March, 11.20am to 12.10pm.

MT: Green-fuel contracts and charterparties now involve new types of operational and safety risk. How should owners and charterers allocate responsibilities for issues like fuel quality, bunkering delays, or regulatory non-compliance?

The move towards green fuels has changed the risk landscape, so allocation of responsibility needs to be addressed more explicitly in charterparties. In terms of fuel quality, owners will usually retain responsibility for the vessel itself, ensuring that engines, fuel systems and safety arrangements are compatible with the nominated fuel, that crew are properly trained, and that reasonable onboard testing and monitoring is carried out during bunkering. Charterers, by contrast, are typically better placed to manage supply risk and should warrant that the fuel supplied meets the agreed contractual and regulatory specifications, with appropriate certification and traceability. Given the novelty and technical sensitivity of fuels such as methanol or ammonia, it is increasingly important for parties to agree on upfront procedures for sampling, testing and dispute resolution, so that any quality concerns can be addressed without unnecessary delay or operational disruption.

Similar principles apply to bunkering delays and regulatory non‑compliance – liability for delays will still largely follow the charterparty’s terms, but the risk is becoming more pronounced as uptake outpaces infrastructure. While around half of global newbuild tonnage is now alternative‑fuel capable,[1] there are still only relatively few ports worldwide with methanol bunkering available or planned, which makes availability‑driven delays a real commercial issue. On compliance, owners carry the operational burden of complying with evolving international and regional regimes such as the IGF Code, port state requirements and emissions reporting under regimes such as the EU ETS and FuelEU Maritime. Meanwhile, charterers should clearly define any emissions or sustainability criteria linked to the fuel they nominate. Ultimately, well‑drafted clauses that clearly allocate liability for delays, fines or penalties arising from fuel or regulatory issues are essential, as green fuels move from pilot projects into mainstream commercial use.

MT: As environmental claims and disputes increase, do you expect to see more litigation around emissions reporting, data accuracy, and ‘greenwashing’ in chartering or commercial arrangements?

In short, yes. As decarbonisation requirements tighten, we are likely to see a marked increase in disputes and regulatory scrutiny around emissions reporting, data accuracy and environmental claims in shipping contracts. Environmental representations are no longer peripheral – they are increasingly embedded in charterparties, voyage planning and financing arrangements, particularly through regimes such as the EU ETS and FuelEU Maritime. That creates obvious friction where parties try to optimise routes or reporting to reduce their regulatory exposure, or where owners and charterers take different views on responsibility for allowances, penalties or compliance failures. As regulators become more adept at identifying practices such as artificial port calls or other forms of regulatory avoidance, disputes are likely to arise over whether emissions have been reported correctly and who ultimately bears the financial consequences.

At the same time, the risk of litigation linked to greenwashing and inaccurate emissions claims is quickly growing. Courts and regulators are already showing a willingness to challenge misleading environmental statements across other sectors, and there is no reason to think shipping will be treated differently. By way of example, the Grantham Research Institute at the LSE identified 43 climate‑washing cases globally between 2016 and 2021, followed by a further 77 cases filed between 2021 and 2023, illustrating how rapidly enforcement is accelerating.[2] As charterparties increasingly include ESG‑linked clauses on emissions performance, fuel choice or efficiency targets, we can expect more private law disputes as well, particularly where data sources diverge or promised environmental outcomes are not achieved. The challenge for the industry will be that ESG‑related obligations are often difficult to define and even harder to quantify in loss terms, which makes careful drafting and allocation of risk more important than ever.

MT: Digitalisation is creating new contractual risks, particularly around cybersecurity and system failures. What should vessel operators consider when negotiating agreements with digital service providers?

Digitalisation is now so embedded in vessel operations that contracts with digital service providers need to be treated as safety‑critical. Service providers’ obligations should be clearly defined, including minimum security standards, patching and monitoring responsibilities, access controls, and incident notification requirements. Liability and indemnity provisions should expressly cover cyber incidents or system failures caused by the provider’s systems, rather than relying on generic exclusions. Where BIMCO’s Cyber Security Clause 2019 is incorporated, parties should be cautious about default liability allocations and ensure these are refined to reflect who actually controls and manages the relevant systems.

Beyond cybersecurity, operators should focus on resilience, compliance and control. Contracts should require adherence to recognised standards such as ISO 27001, NIST or the IMO cyber risk management guidelines, which help anchor liability and reduce uncertainty when failures occur. Clear incident response procedures are essential, including defined response times and cooperation obligations, as vague wording is often commercially unworkable during a live incident. Data ownership is another increasingly contentious area: operators should ensure they retain access to, and control over, operational and performance data, particularly on termination, to avoid being locked out of critical information needed for compliance or vessel management. Finally, where contracts interface with carriage obligations, operators should be mindful of potential conflicts with non‑delegable duties under regimes such as the Hague‑Visby Rules, and avoid including provisions that may ultimately prove to be unenforceable.

[1] Clarksons. OVER HALF OF VESSEL ORDERBOOK CAN USE ALTERNATIVE FUEL, SAYS CLARKSONS – Clean Shipping International

[2] Grantham Research Institute – Climate‑washing litigation. New figures show rise in ‘climate-washing’ litigation against companies – Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment

Photo credit: HFW
Published: 18 March, 2026