Chemical Tanker Owner Loses "Unnecessary" Low-Sulfur Bunker Use Claim

A claim against a port agent for the costs of burning low-sulfur fuel that the owner says were "not necessary" has been unsuccessful.

International Transport Intermediaries Club (ITIC) says the owner of a chemical tanker has been unsuccessful in claim against a port agent for costs incurred while burning low-sulfur fuel at a European port that the owner says was "not necessary."

ITIC says that the ship master sent an email prior to arrival to ask the assigned agent, who was receiving the help of a usual sub-agent to assist with the chemical tanker locally at the port, if there were any fuel restrictions to be aware of upon arrival.

Through the agent and sub-agent, the harbour master is said to have confirmed that the vessel was required to burn low-sulfur MGO "from the time of its arrival at the port's outer roads."

The ship master is said to have complied with harbour master's instructions, but while waiting at anchorage, the ship master realised that the vessel would not be able to refuel with low-sulfur bunkers at that port, so they decided to divert to another port to replenish their supply.

After returning to the intended port, operations are reported to have proceeded as expected.

"The agent subsequently received a claim from the owners of the vessel for approximately $150,000," states ITIC.

"The owners alleged that the information provided to them by their agent was incorrect, and that the local regulations only required vessels to burn low-sulphur fuel while alongside the berth, and not at anchorage.

"Because low-sulphur fuel was more expensive, the owners claimed for the additional costs incurred in burning this fuel when, they claimed, this was not necessary."

The ship owner is also said to have claimed for the amount that it cost to divert the ship to an alternate port to refuel.

"It was established that the sub-agent had simply passed on the instructions received from the harbour-master, and that the agent had in turn passed this on, word for word, to the owners," explained ITIC.

While the decision was subsequently appealed, it was withdrawn shortly thereafter.

ITIC says it has covered the legal costs for the agent's defence.

In May, the ITIC said that a paperwork mistake by a shipbroker led to it being responsible for a $777,278 bunker bill.