2,051
edits
Changes
From DMC
no edit summary
'''Summary'''
'''Interpleader relief was (Fn.1) could not be granted to parties (principally ship charterers) that had purchased bunkers from intermediate sellers – the OW companies - as (amongst other reasons) in Singapore the physical suppliers , who had sold the bunkers to the OW companies but not been paid for them, had no prima facie claim against those bunker purchasers. There wouldwere, therefore, be no competing claims on which interpleader jurisdiction could be founded.'''
This note has been contributed by Justin Gan Boon Eng, LLB (Hons) NUS, Advocate & Solicitor, Singapore (non-practising); Solicitor, Hong Kong.
After the collapse of OW Bunker, many of the purchasers received two competing claims: (a) the first was from ING for the sum owing under the seller-purchaser contract; (b) the second was from the physical supplier for the sum owing under the seller-physical supplier contract. With one exception, none of the purchasers before the Court was the owner of the vessel to which the bunkers were delivered.
The purchasers accepted that payments for the bunkers were due and owing but claimed that they were unable to decide which party to pay. Under these circumstances, the purchasers decided that it would be prudent to seek interpleader relief (Fn.1) from the court.
The two substantive issues which arose for determination were:
