Equatorial Marine v. Bunga Melati 5: Agency, Bunker Supply, & Shipowner Liability
In the Singapore High Court case of *Equatorial Marine Fuel Management Services Pte Ltd v The Owners of the Ship or Vessel "Bunga Melati 5"*, Judith Prakash J. addressed whether MISC Berhad, a shipowner, was liable to Equatorial Marine Fuel Management Services Pte Ltd (EMF), a marine fuel supplier, for bunkers supplied to MISC's ships. The dispute centered on whether Market Asia Link Sdn Bhd (MAL) acted as MISC's agent or as an independent purchaser when ordering the bunkers. EMF claimed US$21,703,059.39 plus interest for non-payment under three bunker contracts. The court dismissed EMF's claim, finding that EMF failed to establish that MAL had actual or apparent authority to act as MISC's agent, or that MISC was estopped from denying MAL's authority.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Admiralty
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court case concerning liability for bunker fuel supplied to a ship, focusing on whether the supplier's counterparty acted as the shipowner's agent.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EQUATORIAL MARINE FUEL MANAGEMENT SERVICES PTE LTD | Plaintiff | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "BUNGA MELATI 5" | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment for Defendant | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Judith Prakash | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- EMF claimed US$21,703,059.39 plus interest for fuel delivered to MISC vessels under three bunker contracts.
- The contracts were concluded with MAL, and MISC argued it was not a party to those contracts.
- EMF alleged MAL was acting as MISC's broker and MISC knew MAL was purchasing bunkers in MISC's name.
- MAL was approved as a registered bunker vendor of MISC in March 2005.
- Compass Marine and OceanConnect brokered bunker supply contracts between EMF and MISC vessels.
- Middleton, owner of Compass Marine, testified about the role of brokers in bunker supply transactions.
- MAL's application to be a registered vendor of bunkers was evaluated by MISC employees.
5. Formal Citations
- The “Bunga Melati 5”, Admiralty in Rem No 21 of 2010, [2015] SGHC 190
- The “Bunga Melati 5”, Civil Appeal No 163 of 2015, [2016] SGCA 20
- The“Bunga Melati 5”, , [2012] 4 SLR 546
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| MAL began supplying MISC with spare parts. | |
| MAL expressed interest in expanding business with MISC to include bunker supply. | |
| MISC approved MAL as a registered vendor of bunkers. | |
| EMF began delivering fuel to MISC vessels through Compass Marine and OceanConnect. | |
| Fixed Price Contracts concluded between Compass Marine and EMF. | |
| Deliveries under the Fixed Price Contracts began. | |
| Spot Contract concluded between OceanConnect and EMF. | |
| EMF supplied bunkers to NAVIG8 FAITH under the Spot Contract. | |
| EMF supplied 1,290.012mt of fuel to the vessel FENG HUANG ZHOU. | |
| EMF received a payment of US$1,999,981.20. | |
| Admiralty in Rem No 21 of 2010 filed. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Decision Date | |
| Appeal dismissed by the Court of Appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Actual Authority
- Outcome: The court found that MISC did not grant actual authority to MAL to act as its agent in respect of the Disputed Contracts.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Consensual agreement between principal and agent
- Implied agreement arising out of parties’ conduct
- Related Cases:
- [1964] 2 QB 480
- [2013] 4 SLR 308
- [1968] AC 1130
- Apparent Authority
- Outcome: The court found that MISC did not clothe MAL with apparent authority to act as its agent in respect of the Fixed Price Contracts.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Representation by principal to contractor
- Reasonable reliance by contractor
- Related Cases:
- [1964] 2 QB 480
- [2009] 4 SLR(R) 788
- Agency by Estoppel
- Outcome: The court found that MISC was not estopped from denying that MAL was authorized to act as its agent in respect of the Disputed Contracts.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Principal's silence creating erroneous impression
- Duty to speak
- Detrimental reliance
- Related Cases:
- [2012] 4 SLR 546
- [2004] 218 CLR 451
- [1973] 1 WLR 1002
- [2000] 2 SLR(R) 287
- Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence
- Outcome: The court ruled on the admissibility of various items of hearsay evidence, admitting some documentary evidence but excluding certain affidavits and oral statements.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Documentary hearsay evidence
- Oral hearsay evidence
- Interest of justice
- Reasonable efforts to locate witness
- Related Cases:
- [2014] 4 SLR 795
- [2015] 2 SLR 686
- [2013] SGHC 224
- [2014] SGHC 102
- [2013] 3 SLR 573
- [1989] 3 MLJ 166
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Shipping Litigation
- Admiralty
- Contract Disputes
11. Industries
- Shipping
- Fuel Supply
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd | Queen's Bench | Yes | [1964] 2 QB 480 | England and Wales | Cited for the legal definition of actual and apparent authority in agency law. |
| Alwie Handoyo v Tjong Very Sumito and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 308 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the cornerstone of actual authority is a consensual agreement between principal and agent. |
| Garnac Grain Co Inc v H M F Faure & Fairclough Ltd and Others | House of Lords | Yes | [1968] AC 1130 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that a consensual agreement between principal and agent can be implied from the words and conduct of the parties. |
| Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ), Singapore Branch v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 788 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that reliance on a representation is not reasonable if the contractor was put on inquiry and failed to make the necessary inquiries about the purported agent’s authority. |
| The“Bunga Melati 5” | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 546 | Singapore | Cited for the elements necessary to establish an estoppel by representation. |
| Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas | High Court | Yes | [2004] 218 CLR 451 | Australia | Cited as an illustration of agency by estoppel where the principal makes no manifestation of authority but, by conduct, intentionally or carelessly causes the belief that the agent is authorised. |
| Spiro v Lintern | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1973] 1 WLR 1002 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a principal may be estopped from denying an agent's authority if the principal, having notice of a belief that the agent is authorized, does not take reasonable steps to notify others of the facts. |
| Everbright Commercial Enterprises Pte Ltd v AXA Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR(R) 287 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that silence only founds estoppel when a duty to speak arises, which occurs when silence would create an erroneous impression leading the representee to alter his position for the worse. |
| Liu Wing Ngai (trading as Kam Wah Ultrasonic Engineering Co) v Liu Kok Wai (trading as Almac Machinery) | High Court | Yes | [1996] 3 SLR(R) 508 | Singapore | Cited to support the argument that the court should look beyond individual facts to consider the totality of the evidence when determining the existence of a principal-agent relationship. |
| Wan Lai Ting v Kea Kah Kim | High Court | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 795 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that section 32(3) of the Evidence Act can be used to exclude affidavits from being tendered as evidence if the makers of those affidavits have not been made available for cross-examination. |
| Gimpex Ltd v Unity Holdings Business Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 686 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the discretion to exclude evidence under section 32(3) of the Evidence Act depends on whether other countervailing factors outweigh the benefit of having the evidence admitted. |
| Gimpex Ltd v Unity Holding Business Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHC 224 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a mere allegation of unavailability is not acceptable when invoking section 32(1)(j) of the Evidence Act. |
| Pacific Marine & Shipbuilding Pte Ltd v Xin Ming Hua Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2014] SGHC 102 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a mere allegation of unavailability is not acceptable when invoking section 32(1)(j) of the Evidence Act. |
| Teo Wai Cheong v Crédit Industriel et Commercial and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 573 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the words 'cannot be found' in section 33 of the Evidence Act import the requirement that the party seeking to rely on it must be able to show the court that he acted with 'due diligence' in attempting to find the witness. |
| Ng Yiu Kwok v PP | Unknown | Yes | [1989] 3 MLJ 166 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that documentary hearsay evidence (in the form of business records) was allowed where its makers were outside the jurisdiction and unwilling to go to Malaysia to testify. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Bunker supply
- Agency
- Actual authority
- Apparent authority
- Estoppel
- Bunker broker
- Registered vendor
- Fixed price contract
- Spot contract
- Representation
- Hearsay evidence
15.2 Keywords
- Bunker fuel
- Shipowner liability
- Agency law
- Estoppel
- Singapore High Court
- Admiralty
- Contract dispute
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Agency
- Contract Law
- Shipping
- Admiralty
- Evidence