In Brief:
- Although MARPOL Annex VI does not impose a fixed protest deadline, UAE Courts and maritime practice require prompt objection and proper testing of the MARPOL-sealed samples to maintain evidentiary integrity.
- The Bunker Delivery Note and the MARPOL sample are central to resolving fuel quality disputes; unilateral testing without supplier involvement is frequently rejected by the Courts.
- In a recent case, the purchaser’s two-week delay in raising objections and failure to test the MARPOL sample materially weakened its position, leading the UAE Courts to uphold the supplier’s case at both instances.
Bunker quality disputes remain one of the contested issues in maritime litigation, often turning on sampling procedures, documentation, and the steps taken promptly after delivery. Our firm recently represented a reputable bunker supplier in a dispute where the purchaser alleged that the delivered fuel was off-specification. The UAE Courts ultimately rejected the purchaser’s claim and upheld our client’s position at both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal. The case demonstrates the significance of MARPOL compliance, the evidentiary weight of the Bunker Delivery Note, and the consequences of failing to test the MARPOL samples in accordance with industry practice.
1. MARPOL Framework and Fuel Quality Evidence
The UAE is a party to the MARPOL 73/78 Convention, including Annex VI, which regulates fuel oil quality, emissions compliance, sampling procedures, and the mandatory documentation for bunker delivery. These provisions form part of the regulatory framework applicable in UAE waters and influence the evidentiary standards applied by the Courts in bunker disputes.
Regulation 18 of MARPOL Annex VI requires that each delivery be accompanied by a Bunker Delivery Note signed by the Master or Chief Engineer, together with a properly sealed MARPOL sample. These samples form the primary evidentiary basis for assessing whether fuel was off-specification. The signed BDN, unless rebutted through reliable and procedurally compliant testing, is treated as strong prima facie evidence of conformity.
2. MARPOL’s Regulatory Role vs. Contractual and Evidentiary Expectations
Although MARPOL Annex VI prescribes the sampling and documentation regime, it does not impose a deadline for filing a Note of Protest. Its primary function is regulatory rather than contractual.
In commercial bunker disputes, however, prompt objection is essential. Maritime practice, accepted legal standards, and the time-bar clauses commonly found in bunker supply contracts all require that any concerns be raised promptly. Delay disrupts the chain of custody and casts doubt on the origin and integrity of any sample later tested. This distinction between MARPOL’s regulatory scope and the commercial consequences of delay featured prominently in our arguments and helped shape the Court’s reasoning.
3. Our Key Arguments on Behalf of the Supplier
We relied on the BDN signed by the vessel’s Master confirming that the fuel met the contractual specifications. In our submissions, we highlighted that the “Fuel Characteristics” section of the BDN expressly recorded the Master’s confirmation (without reservation) that the fuel complied with the agreed specifications. This constituted binding and contemporaneous evidence of conformity at the time of delivery.
We drew the Court’s attention to Annex VI of MARPOL 73/78, ratified by the UAE on 17 April 2007, which requires four samples to be taken during bunkering in the presence of both the vessel’s Master and the supplier. The samples must be numbered, sealed, and signed by both parties. These MARPOL-compliant samples are the only legally recognised basis for subsequent fuel testing.
We also relied on Federal Transport Authority Circular No. 11 of 2019, which reinforces the obligation to declare the sulphur content in the BDN and to take a sealed, signed, and traceable sample during delivery. The Circular mandates that these samples be retained on board until the supplied fuel is consumed, and for no less than twelve months. These provisions affirm that the binding and evidentially valid samples are those whose details appear in the BDN.
The Court appointed expert relied on laboratory results produced by the purchaser although these results were based on samples that were not identified in the BDN, did not bear the Master’s signature or vessel’s stamp, and were not taken in accordance with the MARPOL procedures. We submitted that the expert’s approach violated Circular No. 11 of 2019, which expressly requires that samples be tested in laboratories approved by the UAE Maritime Administration or by an entity authorised by it. The laboratory used by the purchaser was based in the United Kingdom and is not among the approved centres and therefore its results could not be relied upon.
4. The Late Protest and Its Effect on the Evidence
A decisive element of the case was the purchaser’s two-week delay in raising a protest. During this period, the vessel sailed to another jurisdiction, consumed part of the fuel, and only later returned to the UAE. Although the purchaser engaged in routine discussions with the supplier, the purchaser neither issued a formal protest nor proceeded with promptly testing of the sealed samples.
The delay compromised the chain of custody to the point where the origin of the tested sample could no longer be verified. We submitted that such uncertainty rendered the test results inadmissible and undermined the credibility of the allegations. The Courts agreed that the protest should have been raised promptly and that the delay materially weakened the purchaser’s position.
6. Court Findings
Both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal upheld the supplier’s case. The Courts concluded that:
- the BDN constituted reliable prima facie evidence of conformity;
- the purchaser failed to test the MARPOL-sealed samples or follow the recognised procedures;
- the protest was raised too late;
- the test results lacked evidentiary weight due to the absence of a proper chain of custody; and
- the purchaser did not prove breach of the fuel specifications.
Conclusion / Recommendation
This case demonstrates that bunker quality disputes in the UAE turn not only on technical issues but on strict adherence to MARPOL procedures, evidentiary discipline, and promptly protest. Suppliers and purchasers should ensure that sampling, testing, and documentation follow recognised standards, as procedural missteps can influence the outcome of a dispute.
The Dispute Resolution team at Hadef & Partners regularly advises on bunker disputes, MARPOL compliance, vessel arrests, and maritime litigation. We would be pleased to assist clients facing similar issues or seeking preventative guidance in this area.