Sentek Marine v MPA Singapore: Judicial Review of Bunkering License Non-Renewal

Sentek Marine & Trading Pte Ltd applied to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore for judicial review of the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore's decision not to renew its bunkering licenses. The court, presided over by Valerie Thean J, dismissed Sentek's application, finding that the MPA's decision was not influenced by irrelevant considerations, was not unreasonable, and was procedurally fair. The primary legal issue was whether the MPA's decision was justified given Sentek's breaches of license terms.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Prayers for substantive relief dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Regulatory

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Sentek Marine's application for judicial review of MPA's decision not to renew its bunkering licenses was dismissed due to breaches.

1.7 Decision Date

26 August 2024

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Sentek Marine & Trading Pte Ltd	Applicant	Corporation	Application Dismissed	Lost	Quek Mong Hua of Lee & Lee Wong Wai Keong Anthony of Lee & Lee Lim Jun Heng of Audent Chambers LLC Tan Zhengxian Jordan of Audent Chambers LLC Leong Hoi Seng Victor of Audent Chambers LLC
Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore	Respondent	Statutory Board	Decision Upheld	Won	Vincent Leow of Attorney-General’s Chambers Tan Jia Qi, Rachel of Attorney-General’s Chambers Tan Zhongshan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Teo Siqi (Zhang Siqi) of Attorney-General’s Chambers

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Valerie Thean	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Quek Mong Hua	Lee & Lee
Wong Wai Keong Anthony	Lee & Lee
Lim Jun Heng	Audent Chambers LLC
Tan Zhengxian Jordan	Audent Chambers LLC
Leong Hoi Seng Victor	Audent Chambers LLC
Vincent Leow	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Tan Jia Qi, Rachel	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Tan Zhongshan	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Teo Siqi (Zhang Siqi)	Attorney-General’s Chambers

4. Facts

Sentek Marine was in the business of supplying bunkers to vessels calling at the Port of Singapore.
MPA issued two licenses to Sentek: the Bunkering (Bunker Supplier) Licence and the Bunker Craft Operator Licence.
Shell filed a police report on 1 August 2017, leading to investigations into offences linked to misappropriation of gas oil.
Two Sentek vessels, “Sentek 22” and “Sentek 26”, were identified as involved in the Bukom Events.
Sentek was charged with receiving misappropriated marine gas oil on its vessels.
MPA investigated Sentek's compliance with license terms, particularly regarding accurate records.
MPA found breaches of license terms related to record-keeping and falsification.

5. Formal Citations

Sentek Marine & Trading Pte Ltd v Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore, Originating Application No 442 of 2024, [2024] SGHC 213

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2013-09-08	MPA issued two licenses to Sentek: Bunker Supplier License and Bunker Craft Operator License
2017-08-01	Shell Eastern Petroleum Pte Ltd filed a police report
2018-01-01	14 men were charged in relation to the Bukom Events
2022-09-29	42 charges were filed against Sentek under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992
2022-11-30	MPA issued to Sentek Notices to Furnish Documents and Information
2023-01-03	MPA issued to Sentek Notices to Furnish Documents and Information
2023-01-16	Sentek applied to the MPA for the Licences to be renewed
2023-02-27	MPA issued Sentek a Notice to Show Cause Against Proposed Rejection of the Renewal Applications
2023-03-13	Sentek replied to the Show Cause Notice
2023-05-29	MPA responded to Sentek’s solicitors
2023-06-23	Sentek responded to the MPA’s letter
2023-08-07	MPA responded to Sentek’s query on the ex-employees
2023-08-25	Sentek responded, rejecting the MPA’s overtures
2024-04-01	MPA informed Sentek that the Licences would not be renewed
2024-07-11	Permission application and the substantive merits of the judicial review application were heard
2024-08-27	Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

Judicial Review of Administrative Decision
- Outcome: The court found that the MPA's decision was within its legal authority and not subject to judicial review.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2016] 1 SLR 779
Irrelevant Considerations in Administrative Decision
- Outcome: The court held that the MPA did not take into account irrelevant considerations in making its decision.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2016] 1 SLR 779
Wednesbury Unreasonableness
- Outcome: The court found that the MPA's decision was not so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would have made it.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [1948] 1 KB 223
Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice
- Outcome: The court held that the MPA observed the basic rules of natural justice in its conduct of the show cause process.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2015] 2 SLR 19

8. Remedies Sought

Quashing Order
Mandatory Order
Prohibitory Order
Declarations

9. Cause of Actions

Judicial Review

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Regulatory Compliance
Maritime Law

11. Industries

Maritime
Shipping

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Public Prosecutor v Juandi bin Pungot	High Court	Yes	[2022] 5 SLR 470	Singapore	Identified vessels operated by Sentek, “Sentek 22” and “Sentek 26”, as vessels involved in the Bukom Events.
Tan Seet Eng v Attorney-General and another matter	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 1 SLR 779	Singapore	Cited for the principles of legality and rationality in judicial review, stating that the MPA must exercise its discretion in good faith and not make absurd decisions.
Per Ah Seng Robin and another v Housing Development Board and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 2 SLR 19	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the MPA must observe the basic rules of natural justice in its conduct of the show cause process, and in coming to its decision.
Associated Provincial Picture Houses, Limited v Wednesbury Corporation	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1948] 1 KB 223	England and Wales	Cited for the principle of Wednesbury unreasonableness, stating that no reasonable authority would have made the Decision.
Lines International Holding (S) Pte Ltd v Singapore Tourist Promotion Board	High Court	Yes	[1997] 1 SLR(R) 52	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court is not entitled to substitute the public authority’s decision with its view of how the public authority should have exercised its discretion.
Chee Siok Chin and others v Minister for Home Affairs and another	High Court	Yes	[2006] 1 SLR(R) 582	Singapore	Cited for the principle that decision-makers may in good faith arrive at different decisions based on the same facts.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court 2021

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore Act 1996	Singapore
Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Bunkering
Bunker Supplier Licence
Bunker Craft Operator Licence
Bukom Events
MPA Act
Show Cause Notice
Breaches
Falsification of Records
Judicial Review
Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Natural Justice
Procedural Fairness

15.2 Keywords

Judicial Review
Bunkering License
MPA
Sentek Marine
Singapore
Administrative Law
Maritime Law
Regulatory Law

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Administrative Law	90
Natural justice	60
Commercial Disputes	30

16. Subjects

Administrative Law
Maritime Law
Regulatory Law
Bunkering