In order to deliver a personalised, responsive service and to improve the site, we remember and store information about how you use it. This is done using simple text files called cookies which sit on your computer. By continuing to use this site and access its features, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
To find out more about the way Informa Law uses cookies please go to our Cookie Policy page. Close


Lloyd's Law Reporter


[2017] SGHC 138, Singapore High Court, Belinda Ang Saw Ean J, 7 June 2017

Admiralty - Priorities - Mortgage - Necessaries - Claim for bunkers purportedly supplied for the last voyage permitting arrest and judicial sale - Mortgaging bank said to be involved in running shipowning company - Benefit from supply of necessaries accruing to mortgagee - Proceeds from judicial sale

This was the question of the order of priorities of claims against the proceeds from the judicial sale of the vessels Posidon and Pegasus . The interveners, suppliers of bunkers, argued that their claim for necessaries should rank in priority above the mortgagee bank's claim. The judge recognised that the demands of justice may occasionally require that equity be done, but held that the present case did not involve circumstances such as to justify a departure from the established position that the mortgagee's claim should take priority over the interveners' necessaries claim.

The rest of this document is only available to online subscribers.

If you are already a subscriber, please enter your details below to log in.

Enter your email address to log in as a user on your corporate account.
Remember me on this computer

Not yet an i-law subscriber?


Request a trial Find out more