Judge Orders Shipper To Deposit $108 Million To Secure Ship’s Release

By
Mfame Team
-
1619

  • Lon­don High Court or­dered two de­fen­dants to de­posit US$76 mil­lion.
  • The deposit has to be deposited into a Sin­ga­pore court to free the tanker, Mir­a­cle Hope.
  • It was ar­rested in Sin­ga­pore wa­ters over an al­leged trade de­fault.
  • It was charged for mis­de­liv­ery by the ship’s char­ter­ers and cargo sup­plier of mil­lion bar­rels of crude oil.
  • The Mir­a­cle Hope case in­volves cargo Petro­bras sold to Hon­top En­ergy (Sin­ga­pore).

According to an article published in Pressreader, the trade may­hem caused by the coro­navirus pan­demic played out in a Lon­don court af­ter an oil tanker was ar­rested in Sin­ga­pore in March, fol­low­ing a le­gal tus­sle in­volv­ing com­pa­nies from around the world.

Shippers fined

On April 27, Lon­don High Court Jus­tice Nigel Teare, in an un­usual move, or­dered two de­fen­dants to de­posit US$76 mil­lion (S$108 mil­lion) as se­cu­rity into a Sin­ga­pore court to free the tanker Mir­a­cle Hope, which was ar­rested in Sin­ga­pore wa­ters by the Supreme Court Sher­iff over an al­leged trade de­fault.

The Sin­ga­pore branch of French bank­ing gi­ant Natixis had ap­plied through its Sin­ga­pore lawyers for the ar­rest of the ship on March 12.

Al­leged mis­de­liv­ery of crude oil

The bank is seek­ing pay­ment from the ves­sel owner – South Africa-based Ocean Light Ship­ping – for al­leged mis­de­liv­ery by the ship’s char­ter­ers and cargo sup­plier of someone mil­lion bar­rels of crude oil from Petro­bras in Brazil that was shipped to China last year.

The 333m-long Mar­shall Is­lands ­flagged tanker is an­chored in the Eastern Bunker­ing Anchorage of the Sin­ga­pore Strait.

It is one of nine ves­sels cur­rently in the cus­tody of the Sin­ga­pore Supreme Court Sher­iff over a va­ri­ety of dis­putes.

It is one of nine ves­sels cur­rently in the cus­tody of the Sin­ga­pore Supreme Court Sher­iff over a va­ri­ety of dis­putes.

Payout or reimburse the scorned party

When a court-or­dered pay­out or al­ter­na­tive to se­cure the re­lease is not set­tled, the Sher­iff will in­vite the sale of the ves­sel by pri­vate treaty to re­im­burse the ag­grieved party.

Some 16 ves­sels were sold last year in this way. This is up from 12 ves­sels in 2018 under the Sher­iff’s sale, ac­cord­ing to the Supreme Court web­site.

The Mir­a­cle Hope case in­volves cargo Petro­bras sold to Hon­top En­ergy (Sin­ga­pore).

Natixis shelled more than US$65 mil­lion to Petro­bras

Natixis paid more than US$65 mil­lion to Petro­bras, against a let­ter of in­dem­nity from the petroleum firm, but Hon­top En­ergy failed to re­im­burse Natixis, ac­cord­ing to the Bri­tish court judg­ment pa­pers.

Natixis paid more than US$65 mil­lion to Petro­bras, against a let­ter of in­dem­nity from the petroleum firm, but Hon­top En­ergy failed to re­im­burse Natixis, ac­cord­ing to the Bri­tish court judg­ment pa­pers.

The bank then sought de­liv­ery of the cargo as the law­ful holder of the bill of lad­ing from Ocean Light Ship­ping, which did not re­spond. This trig­gered tanker’s ar­rest.

Af­ter the ar­rest, Natixis sought se­cu­rity of more than US$76 mil­lion for the ves­sel’s re­lease. The ves­sel’s owner, in turn, de­manded that Trafigura Mar­itime Lo­gis­tics, to whom it had char­tered the ves­sel, put up the se­cu­rity.

Payment of security

This led Trafigura, which has an of­fice in Sin­ga­pore, to ap­ply in the Lon­don court to have Clear­lake Ship­ping, which had char­ter-voy­aged the ves­sel from Trafigura, to pay the se­cu­rity.

Clear­lake, to­gether with Clear­lake Char­ter­ing USA, in turn, sought Petro­bras to pro­vide se­cu­rity to free the Mir­a­cle Hope from ar­rest in Sin­ga­pore.

In judg­ment grounds last month, Jus­tice Teare noted that both Clear­lake and Petro­bras were dead­locked with Natixis over the form of the bank guar­an­tee needed for the ship’s re­lease, which they sought to re­solve in the Sin­ga­pore High Court.

The judge said: “If a bank guar­an­tee can­not be swiftly pro­vided by other avail­able means, pay­ment into court is the ob­vi­ous al­ter­na­tive. It may be un­usual but then, the Covid-19 pan­demic, which has pre­vented the Sin­ga­pore Court from con­sid­er­ing the terms of the bank guar­an­tee as promptly as it would wish, is un­prece­dented. It may be un­usual but then, the Covid-19 pan­demic, which has pre­vented the Sin­ga­pore Court from con­sid­er­ing the terms of the bank guar­an­tee as promptly as it would wish, is un­prece­dented.”

Ordered to pay US$76 mil­lion into the Sin­ga­pore court

Jus­tice Teare has or­dered pay­ment of the US$76 mil­lion into the Sin­ga­pore court by Thurs­day – 11 days be­fore the Sin­ga­pore High Court is sched­uled to con­sider the ad­e­quacy of the pro­posed guar­an­tees.

The judge added: “The hear­ing be­fore this court, as a re­sult of the COVID 19 pan­demic, took place re­motely with the judge and coun­sel us­ing a video link from their homes. The so­lic­i­tors and other in­ter­ested par­ties, such as the regis­tered own­ers, viewed the pro­ceed­ings re­motely and the hear­ing was com­pleted within a day.”

Did you subscribe to our daily newsletter?

It’s Free! Click here to Subscribe!

Source: Pressreader