Connect with us

Legal

Shipowner of “Win Win” secures CTL win against insurers in Indonesia ‘illegal parking’ case

Master of “Win Win” in February 2019 was ordered by Owners to anchor outside port limits, Singapore to await bunkers/orders when Indonesian authorities detained ship.
Admin

Published

2 years ago

on

Andrew Bicknell, Partner, Clyde & Co (Singapore)

Delos Shipholding SA, the owner of bulk carrier Win Win, on 25 March 2024 secured a constructive total loss (CTL) win under a War Risks Policy against its group of insurers at the English Commercial Court.

The shipowner was entitled to recover the USD 37.5 million agreed value of the vessel, and further claims estimated at USD 235,900 in respect of sue and labour expenses.

The Indonesia “illegal parking” case started in February 2019 when the Master of Win Win was ordered by Owners to anchor outside East of Singapore Port Limits (EOPL) to await orders after receiving bunker fuel at the republic, informed Andrew Bicknell, Partner, Clyde & Co (Singapore).

Bicknell was presenting his findings ‘When illegal parking causes a Constructive Total Loss’ to delegates at Clyde & Co’s Asia Pacific Conference 2024 on Wednesday (29 May).

The following details were extracted from his presentation.

Factual background

The Singapore EOPL anchorage, partly in international waters and partly in Indonesian territorial limits, had been used by hundreds if not thousands of vessels for many years without issue.

Because it was a customary anchorage, neither Master nor Owners considered territorial limits though the vessel was anchored within the Indonesian 12 nautical mile (NM) limit. A sudden change of approach by Indonesian authorities, however, resulted in 20 vessels including the Win Win being detained in EOPL.

The Owners, their club and local club correspondents became involved in discussions with Indonesian authorities to see whether a payment would be made to the authorities in order to release the vessel.

Negotiations ended in April 2019 when it became clear beyond all doubt that any payment would be in the nature of a corrupt payment.

From August 2019 onwards the Owners of Win Win claimed a CTL under their War Risks Policy; War Risks insurers reject Notices of Abandonment.

Vessel was released after nearly 12 months, and the Master was given a seven-month suspension sentence and a USD 7,000 fine.

Owner’s claim under the policy

Under the policy written on American Institute War Clauses, a CTL could arise after six months of vessel detainment.

Following failure of negotiations with Indonesian authorities, a Notice of Abandonment was given by Owners to the insurers in August 2019 and a further notice was served to include the mortgagee bank which was the loss payee under the policy.

All notices to insurers were rejected, and Owners brought proceedings in Commercial Court in London.

Insurers’ defences under the policy

  • Fortuity
    • Insurers accepted that (subject to other Defences) if a fortuitous event had occurred the policy criteria for a CTL had been met. However, insurers argued that because the Master and Owners had voluntarily chosen an anchorage within Indonesian territorial waters without permission, there was no fortuity when the Indonesian authorities decided to detain the vessel.
  • Exclusion (e)
    • The Policy excluded claims resulting from or incurred as a consequence of:
      “Arrest, restraint or detainment under customs or quarantine regulations and similar arrest, restraints or detainments not arising from actual or impending hostilities.”
    • Insurers argued this exclusion applied to the actions of the Indonesian / Navy in enforcing Indonesian sovereignty.
  • Sue and Labour
    • Insurers alleged that Owner’s discussions with Indonesian authorities amounted to a failure to sue and labour.
    • Insurers alleged Owners knew they were getting into a discussion with the Navy for corrupt payments and all they achieved when they withdrew was to alienate the Indonesians.
  • Non-disclosure
    • Insurers allege that Owners’ failure to disclose that the sole nominee shareholder of the owning company (Vangelis Bairactaris – a Piraeus shipping lawyer) had been charged in connection with unrelated alleged drug smuggling activities of well known Greek shipowner Evangelos Marinakis, amounted to material non-disclosure.

The judgement

Finding that the Owner’s claim for a CTL succeeded, the Judge ruled as follows:

  • Fortuity
    • There was no wilful misconduct in anchoring where the Vessel did and there was no active choice by Master / Owner to anchor inside territorial waters and the arrest and subsequent detention of the Vessel was not in the ordinary consequence of that conduct or from the ordinary incidents of trading. Accordingly, the loss was fortuitous.
  • Exclusion (e)
    • The Judge said the test was to ask whether the object and purpose of the arrest was similar to the object and purpose of an arrest under either customs or quarantine regulations. The Judge found there was no such similarity. Rather the arrest of Win Win and the other vessels was prompted by a change of policy on the part of the Indonesian government to assert sovereignty. Accordingly, exclusion (e) did not apply.
  • Sue and Labour
    • The Judge emphasised the challenging and possibly dangerous situation faced by the vessel and the difficult choices faced by the Owners.
    • The Judge considered it quite proper for the Owners to rely heavily on the advice of their P&I Club and to appoint Indonesian lawyers.
    • The sort of informal discussions that then took place were permissible and common practice. The only possible way to secure early release would have been through a discretionary route.
    • When it became “pellucidly clear” that the proposed payment would not be possibly be legitimate, Owners called an immediate halt to this activity:

“Accordingly, I find the Claimants were not in breach of their duty to sue and labour as alleged. Other prudent uninsured might have pulled the plug on discussions sooner, many others I suspect would not.”

  • Non-disclosure

The Judge was not at all sympathetic to this argument; and

  • Accepted the evidence of Mr. Bairactaris that he was solely involved to facilitate the signing of transactional documents quickly when required. He was discharging an administrative function.
  • Bairactaris was not involved in the vessel’s insurance.
  • Found that insurers failed to prove that any of the Claimants either knew or ought to have known about the criminal charges and therefore there was no breach of fair presentation.
  • This disposed of the Defence of non-disclosure but for those interested, the Judge went on to consider issues of inducement as an academic exercise.

Note: A link to the full 111-page judgement can be found here: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/comm/2024/719

Related: IFC shipping advisory: Illegal anchoring by merchant ships in east of Tanjung Berakit, Indonesia
Related: Indonesia: Naval officers allegedly asked for USD 375,000 to release oil tanker “Nord Joy”

 

Photo credit: Clyde & Co
Published: 5 June 2024

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

4 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

5 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

7 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