Equatorial Marine v Owner of Vessel “Bunga Melati 5”: Agency by Estoppel in Bunker Fuel Contracts
Equatorial Marine Fuel Management Services Pte Ltd (EMF) appealed against the High Court's decision to dismiss its claim against MISC Berhad (MISC), the owner of the vessel “Bunga Melati 5”, for non-payment of bunker fuel supplied under contracts concluded with Market Asia Link Sdn Bhd (MAL). EMF argued that MISC was estopped from denying that MAL acted as its agent. The Court of Appeal of Singapore, comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ, Chao Hick Tin JA, and Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, dismissed the appeal, finding that EMF failed to prove MISC knew MAL was misrepresenting itself as MISC's agent and that there was no unconscionability.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Admiralty
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal on whether MISC was estopped from denying MAL's agency in bunker fuel contracts. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no unconscionability.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EQUATORIAL MARINE FUEL MANAGEMENT SERVICES PTE LTD | Appellant, Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| OWNER OF THE VESSEL(S) “BUNGA MELATI 5” | Respondent, Defendant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Chao Hick Tin | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Judge of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- EMF claimed US$21,703,059.39 for non-payment of bunker fuel delivered to MISC's vessels.
- EMF contracted with MAL, claiming MAL acted as MISC's agent.
- MISC contended it was not party to the contracts and had paid MAL in full.
- MAL was approved by MISC as a registered bunker vendor in March 2005.
- EMF delivered bunkers to MISC's vessels between June 2006 and September 2008.
- EMF argued MISC knew MAL misrepresented itself as MISC’s agent to bunker suppliers.
- MISC suspended MAL for all its spot purchases on 17 November 2008.
5. Formal Citations
- The “Bunga Melati 5”, Civil Appeal No 163 of 2015, [2016] SGCA 20
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| MAL approved by MISC as a registered bunker vendor. | |
| EMF began delivering bunkers to MISC's vessels. | |
| EMF delivered bunkers to MISC's vessels. | |
| EMF sent a payment demand to MISC. | |
| MISC suspended MAL for all its spot purchases. | |
| Parties heard in court. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Agency by Estoppel
- Outcome: The court held that MISC was not estopped from denying that MAL was its agent.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2015] SGHC 190
- Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas (2004) 218 CLR 251
- Spiro v Lintern [1973] 1 WLR 1002
- Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd [1964] 2 QB 480
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Agency by Estoppel
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Admiralty Law
- Contract Disputes
11. Industries
- Shipping
- Fuel Supply
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The “Bunga Melati 5” | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 190 | Singapore | Cited as the judgment under appeal. |
| Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas | High Court of Australia | Yes | Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas (2004) 218 CLR 251 | Australia | Cited to illustrate the principle of agency by estoppel and apparent authority. |
| Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd | Queen's Bench | Yes | Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd [1964] 2 QB 480 | England and Wales | Cited for the general principles concerning the apparent authority of a company officer dealing with a third party. |
| Spiro v Lintern | Not specified | Yes | Spiro v Lintern [1973] 1 WLR 1002 | England and Wales | Cited to illustrate the principle of agency by estoppel. |
| Hong Leong Singapore Finance Ltd v United Overseas Bank Ltd | Not specified | Yes | Hong Leong Singapore Finance Ltd v United Overseas Bank Ltd [2007] 1 SLR(R) 292 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of estoppel: representation, reliance, and detriment. |
| United Overseas Bank Ltd v Bank of China | Not specified | Yes | United Overseas Bank Ltd v Bank of China [2006] 1 SLR(R) 57 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of estoppel: representation, reliance, and detriment. |
| Tradax Export SA v Dorada Compania Naviera SA (The “Lutetian”) | Not specified | Yes | Tradax Export SA v Dorada Compania Naviera SA (The “Lutetian”) [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 140 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the duty to correct a mistaken party's belief. |
| Moorgate Mercantile Co Ltd v Twitchings | House of Lords | Yes | Moorgate Mercantile Co Ltd v Twitchings [1977] AC 980 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the duty to correct a mistaken party's belief. |
| Guy Neale and others v Ku De Ta SG Pte Ltd | Not specified | Yes | Guy Neale and others v Ku De Ta SG Pte Ltd [2015] 4 SLR 283 | Singapore | Cited to support that the doctrine of apparent authority has itself been analysed as an instance of estoppel. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Bunker Fuel
- Agency by Estoppel
- Apparent Authority
- Bunker Contracts
- Registered Vendor
- Estoppel
- Unconscionability
15.2 Keywords
- Agency
- Estoppel
- Bunker Fuel
- Contract
- Admiralty
- Singapore
- MISC
- Equatorial Marine
- Bunga Melati 5
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Agency Law | 90 |
| Estoppel | 80 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
| Shipping Law | 50 |
| Bunker Fuel | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Agency
- Contract Law
- Admiralty
- Commercial Law