[2015] SGHC 190

“laimant’s reliance on [JX]’s signature was unreasonable, the Claimant was entitled to presume that [JX] had been duly authorised by the Respondent to enter into the Contract (see The “Bunga Melati 5” [2015] SGHC 190 at [28] and [29]).”

“ansact on its behalf as its agent. The High Court judge (“the Judge”) rejected all of EMF’s arguments and consequently dismissed EMF’s claim. The Judge’s decision may be found at The “Bunga Melati 5” [2015] SGHC 190 (“the Judgment”).”

“vessel’s stamps as well as their signing of the Vopak bills was likely to have been authorised. Alternatively, the respondents are bound by the doctrine of apparent authority (see The Bunga Melati 5 [2015] SGHC 190 at [26]–[29]). By allowing the Chief Officers to sign and stamp the Vopak bills of lading, the respondent”

“ion of statements made by persons who, being competent but not compellable to give evidence on behalf of a party desiring to give the statements in evidence, refuse to do so (see The “Bunga Melati 5” [2015] SGHC 190 at [124]–[125]).”

“The issue of agency by estoppel was raised before Judith Prakash J (as she then was) at first instance in The “Bunga Melati 5” [2015] SGHC 190 (“Bunga Melati (HC)”). In that case, there was a dispute as to whether the defendant (a shipowner and operator) was liable to pay the plaintiff (a marine fuel supplier) for bunk”