Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Crescent Petroleum, Ltd. vs. MV Lok Maheshwari

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous qRfOOBcYEJ
    The document summarizes a court case regarding a dispute over unpaid bunker fuels supplied to a vessel. The vessel was registered in India but sub-chartered by Canadian companies. Bunker fuels were supplied in Canada but not paid for. The supplier, a Canadian company, attempted to attach the vessel in a Philippine port to recover costs. However, the court ruled that based on the Lauritzen factors for determining applicable law, Canadian law should apply rather than Philippine law since most elements of the case were connected to Canada as the place of supply. Therefore, the court did not have jurisdiction to enforce a maritime lien, which was not provided for under Canadian law in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Crescent Petroleum, Ltd. vs. MV Lok Maheshwari

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous qRfOOBcYEJ
    1K views2 pages
    The document summarizes a court case regarding a dispute over unpaid bunker fuels supplied to a vessel. The vessel was registered in India but sub-chartered by Canadian companies. Bunker fuels were supplied in Canada but not paid for. The supplier, a Canadian company, attempted to attach the vessel in a Philippine port to recover costs. However, the court ruled that based on the Lauritzen factors for determining applicable law, Canadian law should apply rather than Philippine law since most elements of the case were connected to Canada as the place of supply. Therefore, the court did not have jurisdiction to enforce a maritime lien, which was not provided for under Canadian law in this case.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Original Title

    01. Crescent Petroleum, Ltd. vs. Mv Lok Maheshwari

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a court case regarding a dispute over unpaid bunker fuels supplied to a vessel. The vessel was registered in India but sub-chartered by Canadian companies. Bunker fuels were supplied in Canada but not paid for. The supplier, a Canadian company, attempted to attach the vessel in a Philippine port to recover costs. However, the court ruled that based on the Lauritzen factors for determining applicable law, Canadian law should apply rather than Philippine law since most elements of the case were connected to Canada as the place of supply. Therefore, the court did not have jurisdiction to enforce a maritime lien, which was not provided for under Canadian law in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Crescent Petroleum, Ltd. vs. MV Lok Maheshwari

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous qRfOOBcYEJ
    The document summarizes a court case regarding a dispute over unpaid bunker fuels supplied to a vessel. The vessel was registered in India but sub-chartered by Canadian companies. Bunker fuels were supplied in Canada but not paid for. The supplier, a Canadian company, attempted to attach the vessel in a Philippine port to recover costs. However, the court ruled that based on the Lauritzen factors for determining applicable law, Canadian law should apply rather than Philippine law since most elements of the case were connected to Canada as the place of supply. Therefore, the court did not have jurisdiction to enforce a maritime lien, which was not provided for under Canadian law in this case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    01.

    CRESCENT PETROLEUM, LTD., Petitioner, vs. M/V "LOK MAHESHWARI," THE SHIPPING
    CORPORATION OF INDIA, and PORTSERV LIMITED
    G.R. No. 155014 November 11, 2005
    FACTS:
    Respondent M/V "Lok Maheshwari" (Vessel) is an oceangoing vessel of Indian registry that is owned
    by respondent Shipping Corporation of India (SCI), a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
    India and principally owned by the Government of India. It was time-chartered by respondent SCI to Halla
    Merchant Marine Co. Ltd. (Halla), a South Korean company. Halla, in turn, sub-chartered the Vessel through
    a time charter to Transmar Shipping, Inc. (Transmar). Transmar further sub-chartered the Vessel to Portserv
    Limited (Portserv). Both Transmar and Portserv are corporations organized and existing under the laws of
    Canada.
    On or about November 1, 1995, Portserv requested petitioner Crescent Petroleum, Ltd. (Crescent), a
    corporation organized and existing under the laws of Canada that is engaged in the business of selling
    petroleum and oil products for the use and operation of oceangoing vessels, to deliver marine fuel oils
    (bunker fuels) to the Vessel. Petitioner Crescent granted and confirmed the request through an advice via
    facsimile dated November 2, 1995. As security for the payment of the bunker fuels and related services,
    petitioner Crescent received two (2) checks in the amounts of US$100,000.00 and US$200,000.00. Thus,
    petitioner Crescent contracted with its supplier, Marine Petrobulk Limited (Marine Petrobulk), another
    Canadian corporation, for the physical delivery of the bunker fuels to the Vessel.
    On or about November 4, 1995, Marine Petrobulk delivered the bunker fuels amounting to
    US$103,544 inclusive of barging and demurrage charges to the Vessel at the port of Pioneer Grain,
    Vancouver, Canada. The Chief Engineer Officer of the Vessel duly acknowledged and received the delivery
    receipt. Marine Petrobulk issued an invoice to petitioner Crescent for the US$101,400.00 worth of the
    bunker fuels. Petitioner Crescent issued a check for the same amount in favor of Marine Petrobulk, which
    check was duly encashed.
    Having paid Marine Petrobulk, petitioner Crescent issued a revised invoice dated November 21,
    1995 to "Portserv Limited, and/or the Master, and/or Owners, and/or Operators, and/or Charterers of M/V
    Lok Maheshwari" in the amount of US$103,544.00 with instruction to remit the amount on or before
    December 1, 1995. The period lapsed and several demands were made but no payment was received.
    Also, the checks issued to petitioner Crescent as security for the payment of the bunker fuels were
    dishonored for insufficiency of funds. As a consequence, petitioner Crescent incurred additional expenses
    of US$8,572.61 for interest, tracking fees, and legal fees.
    On May 2, 1996, while the Vessel was docked at the port of Cebu City, petitioner Crescent instituted
    before the RTC of Cebu City an action "for a sum of money with prayer for temporary restraining order and
    writ of preliminary attachment" against respondents Vessel and SCI, Portserv and/or Transmar.
    On May 3, 1996, the trial court issued a writ of attachment against the Vessel with bond at
    P2,710,000.00. Petitioner Crescent withdrew its prayer for a temporary restraining order and posted the
    required bond.
    On May 18, 1996, summonses were served to respondents Vessel and SCI, and Portserv and/or
    Transmar through the Master of the Vessel. On May 28, 1996, respondents Vessel and SCI, through Pioneer
    Insurance and Surety Corporation (Pioneer), filed an urgent ex-parte motion to approve Pioneers letter of
    undertaking, to consider it as counter-bond and to discharge the attachment. On May 29, 1996, the trial
    court granted the motion; thus, the letter of undertaking was approved as counter-bond to discharge the
    attachment.
    ISSUE:
    Whether the Philippine court has or will exercise jurisdiction and entitled to maritime lien under our laws on
    foreign vessel docked on Philippine port and supplies furnished to a vessel in a foreign port?
    RULING:

    In a suit to establish and enforce a maritime lien for supplies furnished to a vessel in a foreign port,
    whether such lien exists, or whether the court has or will exercise jurisdiction, depends on the law of the
    country where the supplies were furnished, which must be pleaded and proved.
    The Lauritzen-Romero-Rhoditis trilogy of cases, which replaced such single-factor methodologies as
    the law of the place of supply. The multiple-contact test to determine, in the absence of a specific
    Congressional directive as to the statutes reach, which jurisdictions law should be applied. The following
    factors were considered: (1) place of the wrongful act; (2) law of the flag; (3) allegiance or domicile of the
    injured; (4) allegiance of the defendant shipowner; (5) place of contract; (6) inaccessibility of foreign
    forum; and (7) law of the forum. This is applicable not only to personal injury claims arising under the Jones
    Act but to all matters arising under maritime law in general
    The Court cannot sustain petitioner Crescents insistence on the application of P.D. No. 1521 or the
    Ship Mortgage Decree of 1978 and hold that a maritime lien exists. Out of the seven basic factors listed in
    the case of Lauritzen, Philippine law only falls under one the law of the forum. All other elements are
    foreign Canada is the place of the wrongful act, of the allegiance or domicile of the injured and the place
    of contract; India is the law of the flag and the allegiance of the defendant shipowner. Applying P.D. No.
    1521,a maritime lien exists would not promote the public policy behind the enactment of the law to
    develop the domestic shipping industry. Opening up our courts to foreign suppliers by granting them a
    maritime lien under our laws even if they are not entitled to a maritime lien under their laws will
    encourage forum shopping. In light of the interests of the various foreign elements involved, it is clear that
    Canada has the most significant interest in this dispute. The injured party is a Canadian corporation, the
    sub-charterer which placed the orders for the supplies is also Canadian, the entity which physically
    delivered the bunker fuels is in Canada, the place of contracting and negotiation is in Canada, and the
    supplies were delivered in Canada.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy