---

Shipowners need to carefully vet marine fuel suppliers before doing business with them, according to Morten Olsen Vind, vice president of Singapore-based TransNav Shipping.

Speaking to Maritime CEO, Olsen Vind commented: "One major concern we are having these days, and I do not believe this is only TransNav as it affects the shipowning and managing community worldwide, is the increasing need to very carefully perform due diligence on our bunker suppliers."

One issue, according to the TransNav vice president, is that bunker players have been affected financially by the current shipping climate.

"Some suppliers are massively exposed due to many market-suffering owners in the bulk, offshore, and the container sectors. In cases where bunker companies default, the result can be a second bill for bunkers to the actual suppliers," he expained.

The 'second bill' issue Olsen Vind refers to was recently highlighted in a case involving the now-defunct company OW Bunker in a judgement handed down on May 11 by the English Supreme Court.

The court ruled that the owner of the vessel Res Cogitans should pay OW Bunker's assignee, ING Bank, in a case where OW Bunker acted as a trader rather than the physical supplier. The case did not directly address whether the physical supplier - which was never paid by OW Bunker - also has a right to make a claim against the vessel owner, thus leaving the status of supplier with outstanding payments unresolved and the buyer financially exposed to potentially being required to pay twice for the same fuel delivery.

Commenting on the issue earlier this month, the International Bunker Industry Association (IBIA) said: "Looking at the various outcomes of legal proceedings evident in the wake of OW's demise so far, IBIA's legal working group has highlighted a decision (pending appeal) by the Federal Court of Canada in the Canpotex case might point to a more fair and balanced way forward.

"In the Canpotex case, the current ruling suggests all parties in the sales chain should get only what they originally bargained to get, meaning OW would only be entitled to its trader margin with the rest of the payment going directly to the physical suppliers. Crucially, the ultimate buyer would only make one payment corresponding to the sum contracted for the fuel supplied.

"Effective cooperation would result in suppliers being paid for their supply, traders being paid where they take title, brokers being paid their commission, and lenders being assured of their security for loans to suppliers and traders. Overall, when a customer makes payment, that customer must be assured that it will not have to make the payment more than once."