OW Bunker Test Case: ING Wants 100% of the Bunker Bill, but OW Would Have Only Got "Perhaps 1%"

Jonathan Crow QC is arguing for the appellants in the OW Bunker test case.

Jonathan Crow QC, arguing for the appellants PST Energy 7 Shipping LLC (PST Shipping) in this week's pivotal OW Bunker "UK test case," has highlighted that ING Bank (ING), as OW Bunker's assignee, is claiming 100 percent of the monies from the disputed bunker bill, but had it not been for its bankruptcy OW Bunker would have only ever seen "perhaps 1 percent" of those monies.

• READ MORE: In a Nutshell: What is the "Res Cogitans" OW Bunker UK Test Case and Why is it Important »

This was just one of a number of points Crow made in his opening arguments Tuesday at the UK Supreme Court, where he highlighted several "errors in the other side's treatment of the facts."

"The Respondents say that there is no risk of double jeopardy," said Crow, explaining that OW Bunker / ING's argument was that the previous rulings meant a scenario for potential double payment no longer arrises.

"That, with the greatest respect, is complete nonsense," he said, highlighting that his instructing solicitors were dealing with 32 arrests or threats of arrest from physical suppliers around the world, and "another 53 or so" from ING or OW Bunker.

"So with the greatest respect, it is simply not correct to suggest that the double jeopardy risk has somehow evaporated."

Crow also said he wanted to make it clear his clients were not trying to avoid payment, but that "My client's concern is to pay, once, and to pay the right party."

If the determination is such that PST Shipping is not liable to pay OW Bunker / ING, "then they will pay RMUK. That would seem to be the most sensible outcome," Crow added.

Lord Mance however, argued that should that be the outcome, it could potentially be depriving OW Bunker's creditors of their rightful entitlement to the funds.

Crow responded by highlighting that, in his opinion, ING were already asking for far more than what they were entitled to, as had OW Bunker not gone bankrupt, it would have expected "to get an extremely small margin on the sale, 1 percent or whatever the industry norm would be."

"In the arrangements that are currently in place, ING, as assignee is seeking to recover 100 percent."

Seemingly unmoved by this argument, Lord Mance responded: "One sees that, but unfortunately that is the consequence of contractual entitlement."

The hearing concluded on Wednesday, and industry watchers expect that the five justices presiding over the matter could take weeks or even months to arrive at a conclusion.