Specific to these accusations, Blue Fin alleges that at some time prior to delivering the bunkers to the vessel, Bomin received information that the bunkers it received from its supplier, Shell, were off spec, were not suitable for use and should not be delivered to the vessel.
The claim relates to a bunker delivery in Port Louis on 15 July 2018.
According to the company
On morning of July 15, 2018, Bomin, having information in its possession that the bunkers were off-spec and not suitable for use, allegedly tried to contact its agent that was scheduled to deliver the bunkers to the vessel in order to instruct its agent that the bunkers should not be delivered. Nonetheless, Bomin failed to stop its agents and the bunker barge from delivering the off-spec and unsuitable fuel to the vessel. As such, Bomin delivered to the vessel bunkers that it knew were off-spec and not suitable for use.
Moreover, the tanker company states that after the bunkering was complete, the fuel provider gave them a Bunker Delivery Note, issued by the Hamburg-headquartered bunker company.
The BDN, contrary to what Bomin knew of at the time of delivery, further confirmed and guaranteed that the fuel oil supplied by Bomin to the vessel was in conformity with regulation 14(1) or 14(4a) and regulation 18(1) of Annex VI of Marpol 73/78,’ Blue Fin claims, ‘Bomin issued the BDN to the vessel even though Bomin knew at the time the BDN was issued that the bunkers delivered to the vessel were off-spec, unsuitable for use, and were not in conformity with regulation 14(1) or 14(4a) and regulation 18(1) of Annex VI of Marpol 73/78.
The tanker company continues that it was contacted by Bomin on July 15 and was informed that the bunkers were off-spec and could not be used.
Also, Blue Fin was informed that Bomin was asking for a further bunker testing. Yet, the company due to commitments couldn't proceed, and its vessel sailed from Port Louis as soon as possible in order to complete the voyage to Singapore and deliver the charterer’s cargo on time.
Blue Fin continues
The price of the cargo being shipped by the charterer onboard the vessel was dependent on the vessel arriving in Singapore on time. As such, the charterer faced substantial damages if the vessel was delayed. Furthermore, pursuant to the charter party, Blue Fin would be liable to the charterer for any damages the charterer sustained resulting from delays related to time lost for bunkering or for taking on off-spec bunkers.
Blue Fin alleges that Bomin assured that the vessel was safe to sail with off-spec bunkers. Specifically, Bomin assured Blue Fin that the results of the initial test were incorrect, and that the further testing Bomin had requested would show that the bunkers were actually on-spec.
Blue Fin would not have sailed the vessel from Port Louis prior to receiving the results of the secondary testing had Bomin not made the assurance and promises...
Blue Fin highlights that the results of the second testing showed that the bunkers were off-spec and could not be used, and the vessel had to deviate to take on fresh fuel in order to complete the voyage.
The tanker company made arrangements for the vessel to take on fresh fuel in Galle, Sir Lanka while en route to Singapore. When the vessel arrived in Galle, however, bad weather reportedly prevented the vessel from berthing.
As such, the vessel deviated to Colombo, Sri Lanka to take on fresh fuel.
Additionally, Blue Fin claims the delay caused by having to deviate from the voyage to take on fresh fuel caused the charterer 'significant damages'.
Due to the delay, the charterer suffered reduction in the price of its cargo in the amount of approximately $658,058.92.
Finally, Blue Fin also claims to have incurred an additional $364,603.20 worth of costs and expenses resulting from the deviation from the voyage in the form of increased fuel consumption, lost time, additional steaming time, and other internal costs.
Because of those delays, and as a direct result of Bomin’s breach of contract, Blue Fin breached the terms of the Charter Party and has sustained damages in the amount of approximately $1,022,662.12.