THE "BUNGA MELATI 5"

[2016] SGCA 20, Singapore Court of Appeal, Sundaresh Menon CJ, Chao Hick Tin JA and Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, 29 March 2016

Agency - Agency by estoppel - Apparent authority

This was the appeal of EMF of judgment on a claim for non-payment of bunker fuel delivered to vessels owned or operated by the respondent, MISC, under three bunker contracts. EMF had concluded the bunker contracts with MAL. EMF's case was that MISC was in fact the counterparty to the contracts and that MAL at all times was acting as MISC's agent. MISC response was that it was never party to the contracts and that EMF must look to MAL for payment. MAL, MISC said, had received payment in full for the bunkers. EMF upon appeal only pursued a single point, namely the judge's finding that MISC was not estopped from denying that MAL was its agent. There was no appeal of the judge's finding that there was no actual authority. EMF's version of events was that MAL had conducted its business on the basis that it was MISC's agent, and that MISC had encouraged and assisted MAL's misrepresentations, or at least stood idly by.