Connect with us

Business

Golden Star Marine wins legal suit against Star Formula Marine Services in Vietnam bunker project dispute

GSM awarded USD 1.85 million as well as SGD 5,800; Judge finds SFM Director ‘ungrateful and dishonest in his dealings with Bernard and the plaintiff,’ according to Court Judgement seen by Manifold Times.

Admin

Published

on

Supreme Court

The High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 21 April published a judgement decision regarding a legal case between Singapore-based maritime firms Golden Star Marine Pte Ltd (GSM, or plaintiff) and its former business partner Star Formula Marine Services Pte Ltd (SFM, or defendant).

Summary of the Facts

The case involves GSM Director Bernard Chew filing a suit against SFM Director Martin Chua over a bunkering project at Vietnam, where a client wanted to purchase a large quantity of marine gas oil (MGO) in early 2016, according to the document obtained by Singapore bunkering publication Manifold Times.

Martin, who was in the brink of bankruptcy during the period, approached Bernard for help with the Vietnam project where he would use GSM’s funds to purchase MGO to sell to the Vietnamese buyer.

The bunkers were supplied through Bunkers Marine Pte Ltd in the Vietnam project, while Bernard and Martin agreed to share the profits on a 50:50 basis.

At the material time, three vessels Eustance, the Sea Frontier and Victoria Strike which have been earlier owned by the now defunct Searights Maritime Services Pte Ltd (Searights) were sold/mortgaged to a company called RS Marine Investments Pte Ltd.

Bernard and Martin equally owned the vessels; Martin’s role was to procure the vessels while Bernard would manage the vessels and provide the facilities for their operations through Shipmate (another firm where Bernard is a Director).

Both further agreed that, once full payment was made for the vessels their ownership would be transferred to MB Marine Pte Ltd which is a new company jointly owned by them where Bernard had 50% holding of the shares.

Operation of the vessels commenced after Shipmate sourced and hired crew for the vessels.

Problems Emerge

Initially, the end-buyer would transfer the required funds directly to GSM for any purchase of MGO; however, a change in payment occurred on 8 March 2017 where payment was made to Bunkers Marine after the end-buyer paid SFM – without Bernard’s knowledge or consent.

Bernard, who later found out of the arrangement, held discussions with Martin to change the structure of MB Marine to manage the accounts and receive funds from the Vietnam Project. It was also agreed that upon full payment, the ownership of the vessels would be transferred to MB Marine.

Consequently, GSM supplied MGO or marine fuel oil (MFO) to SFM from 2016 onwards. However, troubles deepened when Martin used SFM’s account to make payment of the last two instalments for the bareboat charter of the vessels.

He went further and subsequently transferred the vessels to parties other than MB Marine, in breach of his agreement with Bernard.

Disappointed, Bernard decided he did not want to have any more dealings with Martin and SFM; Bernard subsequently requested SMF pay up all outstanding sums but was “shocked” to find out claims of USD 691,483.77 owed to RS Marine during a 31 July 2018 meeting.

Martin further presented invoices to GSM for bareboat charters and supply of marine lubrication oil totalling SGD 1,587,000 on 12 July 2019 which Bernard disputed the sum to be monies owed by Martin and SFM to GSM.

Findings by the Court

“There is no doubt on the evidence that the plaintiff and the defendant had a 50:50 partnership in the joint venture until Martin unilaterally took over the entire project and cut out the plaintiff’s share,” stated Senior Judge Lai Siu Chiu.

Judge Lai found the evidence provided by GSM accountant Carmen Lee, GSM Director Doris Ng (also Bernard’s wife) and Bernard to be credible over material from Martin and his assistant Lee Cheng Guan (known as Tony) who was in charge of accounts for SFM in the Vietnam Project.

“I should add that Carmen was not only a credible but also a competent witness, unlike her counterpart Tony from the defendant,” said the Judge.

“Every statement of account disputed by the defendant could be corroborated by her from the plaintiff’s documents, while payments the defendant claimed were not taken into account by the plaintiff were refuted by Carmen’s testimony and/or Tony’s cross-examination.

“As compared with Carmen’s evidence, Tony’s cross-examination showed that the defendant kept poor records and that its version of its running account with the plaintiff was unreliable.

“Despite being in charge of the defendant’s accounts, Tony came across as disorganised if not incompetent – he was not even aware of certain payments made by the plaintiff notwithstanding the undisputed evidence produced by the plaintiff.”

Though Judge Lai noticed Bernard not speaking in complete sentences during cross-examination, she did not find him to be either dishonest or evasive in manner.

“Indeed, Bernard fared much better as a witness than Martin. Martin’s lengthy cross-examination elicited rambling and irrelevant testimony, and he prevaricated and was often evasive. What emerged from his cross-examination was that portions of his AEIC [ affidavit of evidence-in-chief] were clearly false – he was shown to have been untruthful in many instances,” she adds.

“The court finds that the plaintiff and Bernard tolerated Martin’s behaviour despite the frustrations Martin caused because it was Martin who brought the Vietnam Project to the plaintiff as business and the plaintiff had no contact whatsoever with the buyer(s).

“The plaintiff had no choice but to put up with Martin’s misconduct, which culminated in Martin taking away from the plaintiff the Vietnam Project and the vessels from MB Marine.

“Martin’s contention that the plaintiff did not contribute anything to the Vietnam Project ignores the fact that, without the plaintiff’s participation and guarantee to Bunkers Marine, Jack would not have agreed to supply MGO to Martin for the Vietnam Project.

“Moreover, through Shipmate, Bernard crewed, managed and maintained the vessels throughout the duration of the Vietnam Project until Martin cut the plaintiff off.

“In addition, save for the first instalment, which Martin paid from the advance payment made by the cargo buyer under the Vietnam Project, the plaintiff paid to RS Marine the hire purchase instalments (disguised as charter hire) for the vessels. As Bernard alleged, Martin then diverted the vessels away from MB Marine.

“The court not only did not find Martin to be a credible witness, he was ungrateful and dishonest in his dealings with Bernard and the plaintiff.”

Final Judgement

After analysing the facts and findings, Judge Lai decide to award final judgment with costs for the balance sum of USD 1.85 million (exact: USD 1,854,803.66), after taking into account a contra exercise, as well as SGD 5,804.50 in favour of GSM.

She also dismissed SFM’s counterclaim with costs to GSM.

“Martin’s claim for charter hire allegedly due to the defendant was nothing less than dishonest,” she remarked.

GSM v SFM chart

Note: The original High Court of the Republic of Singapore judgement document can be viewed here.

 

Photo credit: Manifold Times
Published: 3 May, 2021

Continue Reading

Bunker Fuel

Singapore: Bunker sales volume raises to year record high of 4.88 million mt in May

Bio-blended variants of marine fuel oil jumped 671.7% to 40,900 mt when compared to figures seen in May 2024.

Admin

Published

on

By

SG bunker performance May 2025

Bunker fuel sales at Singapore port inched forward by 1.1% on year in May 2025, the highest volume seen in 2025, according to Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) data.

In total, 4.88 million metric tonnes (mt) (exact 4,878,100 mt) of various marine fuel grades were delivered at the world’s largest bunkering port in April, up from 4.83 million mt (4,826,800 mt) recorded during the similar month in 2024.

Deliveries of marine fuel oil, low sulphur fuel oil, ultra low sulphur fuel oil, marine gas oil and marine diesel oil in May (against on year) recorded respectively 1.89 million mt (+8.6% from 1.74 million mt), 2.45 million mt (-7.2% from 2.64 million mt), 1,200 mt (from zero), 1,700 mt (-88% from 14,300 mt) and zero (from zero).

SG bunker port performance May 2025

Bio-blended variants of marine fuel oil, low sulphur fuel oil, ultra low sulphur fuel oil, marine gas oil and marine diesel oil in May (against on year) recorded respectively 40,900 mt (+671.7% from 5,300 mt), 95,800 mt (+97.9% from 48,400 mt), 700 mt (from zero), zero (from zero) and zero (from 300 mt). B100 biofuel bunkers, introduced in February this year, recorded 1,900 mt of deliveries in May.

LNG and methanol sales were respectively 45,000 mt (-7.8% from 48,800) and zero (from 1,600 mt). There were no recorded sales of ammonia for the month and so far in 2025.

Related: Singapore: Bunker fuel sales increase by 4% on year in April 2025
RelatedSingapore: Bunker fuel sales increase by 0.5% on year in March 2025
Related: Singapore: Bunker fuel sales down by 8.1% on year in February 2025
Related: Singapore: Bunker fuel sales down by 9.1% on year in January 2025

A complete series of articles on Singapore bunker volumes reported by Manifold Times tracked since 2018 can be found via the link here.

 

Photo credit: Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore
Published: 16 June 2025

Continue Reading

Winding up

Singapore: DBS Bank submits court winding up application against AMS Marine

Bank is a creditor AMS Marine, part of the AMS Marine Group compromising of a sister firm in Malaysia.

Admin

Published

on

By

RESIZED singapore high court

DBS Bank on 6 June submitted a winding up application to the High Court of the Republic of Singapore against Singapore-based AMS Marine Pte Ltd, according to a Government Gazette post on Friday (13 June).

The bank is a creditor AMS Marine, part of the AMS Marine Group compromising of a sister firm in Malaysia offering a full suite of engineering services encompassing piping, steelworks, and afloat repair to oil & gas vessels.

The winding up application is directed to be heard before the Judge sitting in the General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore at 10.00 a.m. on 4 July 2025.

Any creditor or contributory of AMS Marine desiring to support or oppose the making of an order on the winding up application may appear at the time of hearing by himself or his counsel for that purpose.

A copy of the winding up application will be furnished to any creditor or contributory of AMS Marine requiring the copy of the winding up application by the undersigned on payment of the regulated charge for the same.

The Claimant’s address is 12 Marina Boulevard, Marina Bay Financial Centre Singapore 018982. The Claimant’s solicitors are Shook Lin & Bok LLP of 1 Robinson Road #18-00, AIA Tower, Singapore 048542.

Note: Any person who intends to appear on the hearing of the winding up application must serve on or send by post to the Claimant’s solicitors, notice in writing of his intention to do so. The notice must state the name and address of the person, or if a firm, the name and address of the firm, and must be signed by the person, firm, or his or their solicitor (if any) and must be served, or, if posted, must be sent by post in sufficient time to reach the abovenamed not later than 30 June 2025 (at least 3 clear working days before the day appointed for the hearing of the winding up application).

 

Photo credit: Manifold Times
Published: 16 June 2025

Continue Reading

Bunker Fuel

Panama bunker sales volume up 13.9% on year to 453,397 mt in May 2025

Total bunker sales at Panama was 453,397 metric tonnes (mt) in May 2025, compared to sales of 398,964 mt during the similar period in 2024.

Admin

Published

on

By

RESIZED Panama

Bunker fuel sales at Panama increased by 13.9% in May 2025, according to the latest data from La Autoridad Maritima de Panama, also known as the Panama Maritime Authority (PMA).

Total bunker sales at Panama was 453,397 metric tonnes (mt) in May 2025, compared to sales of 398,964 mt during the similar period in 2024.

In May 2025, the Pacific side of Panama posted bunker sales of 368,419 mt; 213,589 mt of VLSFO, 117,297 mt of RMG 380, 1,538 of marine gas oil (MGO), and 35,995 mt of low sulphur marine gas oil (LSMGO) were delivered.

The similar region saw total marine sales of 323,084 mt a year before in May; with VLSFO sales at 184,761 mt, RMG 380 sales at 112,011 mt, MGO sales at 2,199 mt, and 24,113 mt of LSMGO being sold.

Panama’s Atlantic side, meanwhile, recorded total bunker fuel sales of 84,978 during May 2025; the figure comprised 63,318 mt of VLSFO, 8,575 mt of RMG 380, 1,987 mt of MGO, and 11,098 mt of LSMGO.

It saw total sales of 74,980 mt in May a year before; with VLSFO sales of 59,855 mt, RMG 380 sales of 6,508 mt, 1,545 mt of MGO, and LSMGO sales of 7,072 mt.

 

Photo credit: George Keel
Published: 16 June 2025

Continue Reading
Advertisement

OUR INDUSTRY PARTNERS



Trending