Ship owners face significant hurdles in proving that defective bunkers caused engine damage. To successfully file a claim, they must establish a direct link between the engine failure and the specific fuel used. This challenge was highlighted in a recent case against a bunker supplier, in the Rotterdam District Court.
The vessel suffered severe engine damage, requiring emergency towage. Owners alleged that the supplier breached ISO 8217 (fuel quality standards) and MARPOL Annex VI (pollution prevention) regulations. They claimed the bunkers contained high levels of acids, FAME (fatty acid methyl ester), other bio-matter, and calcium and phosphorus (indicating the presence of ULO - unacceptable levels of oxidation products). These contaminants, they argued, caused corrosive damage to engine components. Expert reports supported the owners' claims, with findings from independent experts, a testing laboratory, and the engine manufacturer (MAN) all pointing to the corrosive properties of the bunkers as the cause of the engine damage.
The court faced several complex issues, starting with determining the applicable ISO 8217 standard. While the charter party stipulated compliance with the 2010 version, the laboratory's testing was based on the 2005 version. The court ruled that the latest version at the time of supply (2017) should apply, with certain provisions from the 2010 version retained if they were less stringent.
Regarding fuel quality, the court found:
Acid number was within acceptable limits according to ISO 8217:2010.
ULO presence was confirmed, but the court ruled it did not cause the observed type of damage, and no expert reports linked ULO to the engine failure.
FAME levels exceeded de minimis limits, a breach of ISO 8217. However, owners failed to establish a direct causal link between FAME and the engine damage.
The court also considered several other factors:
One expert involved in the case had thirteen similar cases against the same supplier, but this did not sway the court's decision.
Owners could not definitively pinpoint the specific chemical mechanism that caused the engine damage. They could only demonstrate a probable cause.
The presence of 16 tonnes of unknown residue in the storage tank raised the possibility of the residue contributing to the damage.
Finally, regarding the MARPOL Annex VI violation (Regulation 18.2.3.1), the court found that owners did not conclusively prove that the bunkers were "dangerous" as defined by the regulation. The court did not fully address the extent to which MARPOL obligations apply to bunker suppliers.
In conclusion, the ship owners' claim against the supplier was unsuccessful. The court emphasized the difficulty in proving a direct causal link between defective bunkers and engine damage.
Link to judgement: https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBROT:2024:11248&showbutton=true&keyword=%2522golden%2Barrow%2522&idx=1
Comments