Daebo Shipping Company Ltd v The Ship Go Star

The case before the Court was an appeal against the decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Daebo Shipping Company Ltd v The Ship Go Star. The appeal involved complex issues relating to the ownership of bunkers on a vessel and the application of a lien over sub-freights. The primary dispute was whether the sub-charterer or the disponent owner had title to the bunkers when the owners withdrew the ship due to non-payment of hire by the head charterer. Additionally, the court had to decide on the applicable law for the tort of interference with contractual relations between the disponent owner and the sub-charterer, as well as the scope of the lien under the charterparty.

The legal issues at the heart of the case were whether the title to the bunkers passed to the sub-charterer at the time of delivery, and whether the disponent owner’s right to receive payment for the bunkers was subject to the owners’ lien over sub-freights. The court also needed to determine the applicable law for the tort of interference in contractual relations and whether the owners’ assertion of a lien interfered with the contractual relations of the disponent owner and their sub-charterers.

The Court concluded that the sub-charterer was obliged to pay the disponent owner for the hire and the value of the bunkers within three banking days of the delivery of the vessel. The Court held that the owners’ communication to the sub-charterer, urging them not to make any payments to the disponent owner, constituted an interference with the contractual relations in Singapore, leading to the disponent owner's loss of payments by the sub-charterer. The Court found that the owners’ assertion of a lien over the bunkers did interfere with the contractual relations of the disponent owner and their sub-charterer. The appeal was allowed on these grounds.

The final orders required the parties to confer and file short minutes of orders, including orders as to costs, reflecting the Court's reasons for judgment. If the parties could not agree, they were to file and serve their written submissions on the orders in dispute by a specified date. The orders were to be entered in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.