The absence of a contractual relationship between the plaintiff and defendant negates claims for conversion or unjust enrichment.

Introduction

[1] There are two (2) applications before this Court:

(i) Enclosure (45) is the Plaintiffs application to amend the Statement of Claim; and

(ii) Enclosure (24) is the Defendants application to set aside the writ in rem and warrant of arrest dated 12 February 2015 against the vessel and alternatively, to strike out the writ in rem and the Statement of Claim, as amended, together with damages and/or expenses incurred.

[2] After hearing the parties, this Court had dismissed encl (45) and allowed encl (24). The Plaintiffs appeal is against both decisions in respect of encl (45) and (24).

The Salient Facts

[3] The facts, derived from the written submissions of the parties shows that the Defendant Malik Al Ashtar Ltd, was the registered and beneficial owners of the ship or vessel known as "Malik Al Ashtar" (IMO No: 9525900) of the port of Malta ("vessel"). United Arab Shipping Company ("UASC") was the registered ship manager of the Defendants vessel at the material time.

[4] The Second Interveners - OW Bunkers Middle East DMCC ("OWB") was registered with the Dubai Multi Commodities Centre free zone, United Arab Emirates (UAE) since 2007. OWB carried on its main business as wholesalers of petroleum products including supply of marine fuel oil or bunkers to vessels calling at UAE ports.

[5] OWB had been in contractual relationship with Defendant/UASC for numerous purchases and supplies of marine fuel oil to vessels managed by UASC including the Defendants vessel at UAE ports. The Defendant has made previous purchases from OWB and the Defendant has only paid OWB for bunkers purchased and delivered to the vessel.

[6] As part of the purchase transactions for the bunkers, on or about 9 October 2014, the Defendant/UASC placed an order with OWB for the purchase and delivery of about 2500 metric tones of bunkers to be delivered to the Defendants vessel "Malik Al Ashtar" on 14 October 2014 at the port of Khor Fakkan, UAE, at the agreed price USD1,310,774.03.

[7] On or about 15 October 2014, a bunker barge arranged by OWB known as "MT NILE ", delivered a quantity of about 2,468.501 metric tonnes of bunkers ("the Subject Bunkers") to the Defendants vessel. The Chief Engineer of the Defendants vessel confirmed receipt of the bunkers on the vessel by endorsing a Bunker Delivery Note Receipt No: 9157 issued by one VTTI Fujairah Bunkering UAE.

[8] As in previous transactions, OWB has agreed that the Defendant is to make payment "within 30 days from the date of delivery upon presentation of Invoice", which is the normal arrangement between the parties.

[9] Upon completion of the delivery of the Subject Bunkers, OWB then issued an Invoice No: 129-19378 dated 15 October 2014 in the sum of USD1,310,774.03 directly addressed to the Defendant/ UASC. The payment under the Invoice is to be made only to OWB. OWBs Invoice No: 129-19378 contained a 30 days payment term with a due date on 14 November 2014. In default, interest was to accrue on the outstanding sum in accordance with OWBs General Terms and Conditions of sale.

[10] On 7 November 2014 (ie before the expiry of 30 days credit payment term under OWB supply contract), the Defendant received a Notice of Lien dated 7 November 2014 for the same Subject Bunkers delivered on the Defendants vessel, from the Plaintiffs London Solicitors Reed Smith.

[11] Vide the Plaintiffs Notice of Lien, the Defendant was informed for the first time about a OWBs Purchase Order No 200-10528 dated 9 October 2014 (PO) and Sales Confirmation Note No: 557614 (SCN) dated 9 October 2014 issued by the Plaintiff to OWB. Under this OWBs