This was an appeal from the decision of the High Court of Malaya in MECK Petroleum DMCC v The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship or Vessel 'Global Falcon' [2024] CLJU 1372 (CMI2524) that the appellant's supply of bunkers to the Global Falcon, which was owned by the respondent, did not constitute a maritime claim that established in rem admiralty jurisdiction.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

The High Court Judge correctly exercised his discretion pursuant to O 14A r 1(1) of the Rules of Court to dispose of the writ in rem entirely without a trial (by way of answering the jurisdictional question).

The High Court could not have admiralty jurisdiction over this case under s 24(b) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (CJA), read with ss 20(1)(a) and 20(2)(n) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (UK) (SCA), because the appellant was not making 'any claim in respect of the construction, repair or equipment of [the vessel] or in respect of dock charges or dues'. The High Court Judge also correctly decided that the High Court had no admiralty jurisdiction to hear this case under s 24(b) CJA, read with ss 20(1)(a) and 20(2)(m) SCA:

1. the HSFO was loaded into the vessel's cargo tanks, and not into its fuel tanks or bunker tanks. It was clear that the HSFO could not be intended for the 'operation or maintenance' of the vessel within the meaning of s 20(2)(m) SCA;
2. the vessel only uses about 7 mt per day of low sulphur fuel oil when running at full sea speed at an output of 90% MCR (maximum continuous rating). It would take more than one year for the vessel to consume the HSFO (supplied by the appellant to the vessel) as fuel for the vessel at normal sea speed;
3. the appellant did not adduce any evidence to show that the HSFO was in fact used by the vessel at all;
4. the vessel was not equipped with a 'scrubber' (exhaust gas cleaning system to reduce sulphur emissions) for the vessel to use the HSFO as bunkers in compliance with the requirements of MARPOL; and
5. the HSFO was discharged by a ship-to-ship transfer to the Bunker Barge 3.

The respondent had no onus to prove on a balance of probabilities that the High Court did not possess admiralty jurisdiction: see Empire Shipping Co Inc v Owners of the Ship 'Shin Kobe Maru' (1991) 104 ALR 489, 490, 492, 494 (Gummow J) (cp CMI2030); Port of Geelong Authority v The Ship 'Bass Reefer' (1993) 109 ALR 505, 507 (Foster J) (cp CMI703).

The appellant has not shown 'a strong argument' for the High Court to exercise its admiralty jurisdiction in this case. The High Court answered the jurisdictional question correctly.