Maersk Tankers Singapore applies for USD 41 million court injunction against Winson Oil Trading

A meeting between lawyers representing Maersk Tankers Singapore Pte Ltd (Maersk Tankers, the Plaintiff), in the business of owning, chartering, managing and operating vessels, and energy trading and bunkering firm Winson Oil Trading Pte Ltd (Winson Oil, the Defendant) was scheduled at the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 28 June.

Maersk Tankers will be submitting an application for an injunction to the court; it is seeking to obtain securities from Winson Oil in order to prevent having the Maersk Princess arrested by United Overseas Bank Limited (UOB), according to court documents obtained by Singapore bunkering publication Manifold Times.

To satisfy the injunction, Winson Oil can either pay USD 41 million (exact: USD 40,924,816.13) directly to the court or have the similar figure paid directly to Maersk Tankers in a bank guarantee which will then be furnished to UOB.

Timeline of Events

Court documents showed Winson Oil chartering the Maersk Princess from Maersk Tankers for the carriage of gasoil (cargo) totalling 100,021.642 metric tonnes (mt) from Taiwan to Singapore on 10 February 2020 for four oil companies.

The cargo was later discharged at Universal Terminal without presentation of the original bills of lading to the receivers Hin Leong Trading (Pte) Ltd on 28 February 2020; Maersk Tankers received a letter of indemnity for non-presentation (LOI) from Winson Oil for the discharge operation.

On 18 February 2021, UOB issued a letter of demand to Maersk Tankers claiming it was the lawful owner of a portion [87,683.51 mt] of the gasoil cargo; the bank on the same day further commenced admiralty proceedings against 40 of Maersk Tankers’ ships for the alleged misdelivery of the cargo and informed it may take action against the vessels – unless security is provided.

“Despite the Plaintiff’s reminders and demands, and in breach of Clause 3 of the LOI, the Defendant has to-date failed, refused and/or neglected to furnish the necessary security to UOB for UOB’s Claim to prevent the arrest of the MTS Vessels,” stated Maersk Tankers in the court document.

“Further and/or alternatively, by Clause 5 of the LOI, the Defendant was required expressly and/or impliedly to retrieve the original Bills for delivery to the Plaintiff.

“In breach of Clause 5 of the LOI, the Defendant failed, refused and/or neglected to locate and/or produce the original Bills to the Plaintiff.”