Connect with us

Legal

Thorco Lineage grounding: Bomin claims TKK ‘altered’ fuel, vessel ‘unseaworthy’

Bomin Bunker Oil Corporation submitted its latest defence against WFS subsidiary Trans-Tec on 28 Nov.

Admin

Published

on

5c0de6d49fe68 1544414932

Bomin Bunker Oil Corporation (Bomin), in its latest 28 November defence against a claim by World Fuel Services (WFS) marine fuel brokerage subsidiary Trans-Tec, alleges it supplied “on spec” bunker fuel to the Thorco Lineage owned by Singapore-based TKK Shipping.

“Bomin states that on or about June 7, 2018, it sold and delivered marine fuel of the type and quality requested by Trans-Tec and TKK and that it was “on-spec” at the time it left the possession of Bomin,” it said.

It pointed out any quality complaint by TKK in relation to the marine fuel it supplied has been waived and is time-bared, as per the contract terms between it and Trans-Tec, and “TKK assumed the risk” when initially finding out the fuel had issues and continued using it.

It also claimed TKK “altered” the bunker fuel onboard and described the Thorco Lineage as “unseaworthy”.

“Bomin states that TKK altered the marine fuel at issue after it left the possession of Bomin, thus creating an unforeseeable risk of harm (if any) to TKK and an intervening or superseding cause of TKK’s alleged injuries and damages, if any,” it notes.

“Bomin states that TKK has failed to mitigate and/or properly and/or timely mitigate any injuries and damages that it claims to have suffered.

“Bomin states that the Thorco Lineage was unseaworthy prior to and/or at the inception of and/or throughout the course of the voyage at issue and that such unseaworthiness was the proximate and/or producing cause of any injuries and damages that it claims to have suffered.”

The Thorco Lineage was grounded on 24 June 2018 due to issues with marine fuel supplied by Bomin on 7 June 2018; Trans-Tec took both TKK Shipping and Bomin to court on 7 August 2018 over a dispute between the parties as to the applicable contractual terms and provisions for a marine fuel sale and damage claims arising out of the vessel grounding.

Trans-Tec took both TKK Shipping and Bomin Bunker Oil Corporation (Bomin) to court over a dispute between the parties as to the applicable contractual terms and provisions for a marine fuel sale and damage claims arising out of the vessel grounding.

Related: Bomin Bunker Oil claims it supplied ‘on-spec’ bunker fuel to Thorco Lineage
RelatedTKK Singapore vessel grounded due to alleged ‘improper marine fuel’

Photo credit: Marine Nationale
Published: 10 December, 2018

 

Continue Reading

Legal

“Yangtze Harmony”: The practical effects of enforcing bunkers arbitral awards in Rem

Helmsman says Singapore High Court in The “Yangtze Harmony” [2026] SGHC 3 confirmed that the court can lift a ‘stay’ on in rem proceedings, which were put on hold in favor of arbitration.

Admin

Published

on

By

Helmsman expands legal services into IP and Technology, Media and Technology

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:

Written by Arjun and Shakthi 1

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

Continue Reading

Incident

UK forces intercept suspected Russian shadow fleet tanker in English Channel

In the first UK-led operation of its kind, the vessel “SMYRTOS” was boarded by Royal Marine Commandos and law enforcement officers from the National Crime Agency.

Admin

Published

on

By

UK forces intercept suspected Russian shadow fleet tanker in English Channel

British Armed Forces on Sunday (14 June) boarded a sanctioned oil tanker, suspected of being part of the Russian shadow fleet, in the English Channel, according to the Ministry of Defence. 

In the first UK-led operation of its kind, the vessel SMYRTOS was boarded by Royal Marine Commandos and law enforcement officers from the National Crime Agency.

The UK’s Prime Minister agreed in March that British Armed Forces and law enforcement officers were able to board shadow fleet vessels, in accordance with international law.

The SMYRTOS will be provisionally moved to an anchorage off the South Coast of England and will be monitored for any environmental or safety concerns.

UK’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer, said: “This operation delivers yet another blow to Russia and reminds those fueling Putin’s war in Ukraine that they cannot hide.

“I want to pay tribute to all those involved, including our Armed Forces and law enforcement officers who keep this country safe 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.”

The operation builds on recent support provided by the UK to its allies to interdict shadow fleet vessels, which included RAF and Royal Navy capabilities supporting US and French operations. The operation was conducted in close coordination with the French.

The UK has sanctioned almost 600 Russian shadow fleet vessels to date.

 

Photo credit: Ministry of Defence
Published: 16 June, 2026

Continue Reading

Winding up

Singapore: Notice of intended dividend issued for Xihe Holdings

Creditors of the company will have to submit proof of debt to the liquidators of Xihe Holdings by 9 July at 5pm, according to Government Gazette notice.

Admin

Published

on

By

calculator steve pb from Pixabay

A notice to declare the intended dividend of Xihe Holdings Pte Ltd to its creditors has been posted on the Government Gazette on Thursday (11 June).

Name of Company : Xihe Holdings (Pte) Ltd (In Liquidation)
Unique Entity No. / Registration No.: 199002021M
Address of Registered Office : c/o Grant Thornton Singapore Private Limited, 8 Marina View, #40-04/05 Asia Square Tower 1, Singapore 018960
Court : High Court of Singapore
Number of Matter : HC/CWU 40/2022
Last Day for Receiving Proofs : 9 July 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: steve pb from Pixabay
Published: 15 June, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending