The court was asked as to the application of Section 25(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 when an unpaid supplier of bunkers to a time charterer claims against the owner of the vessel.
Held: The issue was whether as a matter of fact there was a voluntary act by the buyers in possession amounting to delivery. On the evidence, there was, and it was a question of fact not of contractual analysis. Angara purchased bunkers from Britannia upon redelivery in good faith and without notice of any adverse right, and what would otherwise be a good claim in conversion failed. Section 25(1) of the 1979 Act 1979 protects the Claimant.
Mackie QC HHJ
 EWHC 619 (QB),  1 Lloyd’s Rep 61
Sale of Goods Act 1979 25(1)
England and Wales
Cited – Feuer Leather Corporation v Frank Jonstone and Sons 1981
The court considered the requirements for notice in section 28(1). Neill J said: ‘2. the Court is concerned with actual notice and not with constructive notice.
3. In deciding whether a person . . had actual notice:
(a) the Court will . .
Cited – Forsythe International (UK) Limited v Silver Shipping Co Limited and Others 1993
Delivery under section 24 requires a voluntary act by the person in possession because by section 61(1) of the 1979 Act, unless the context or subject matter otherwise requires, `delivery’ means `voluntary transfer from one person to another’. . .
Cited – The Span Terza HL 10-Jan-1984
The parties, suppliers of goods and charterers, disputed the ownership of bunkers at the point of sale.
Held: Lord Diplock said: ‘My Lords I agree with Lord Justice Kerr that cl.3 [which set out that Owners were to pay for bunkers on . .
Cited – Owners of Cargo On K H Enterprise v Owners of Pioneer Container PC 29-Mar-1994
Owners who were claiming under a bailment must accept the terms of a sub-bailment to which it had agreed. This result is both principled and just. A sub-bailee can only be said for these purposes to have voluntarily taken into his possession the . .
Cited – PST Energy 7 Shipping Llc and Another v OW Bunker Malta Ltd and Another SC 11-May-2016
Parties had entered into a bunker supply contract which contained a retention of title clause in favour of the supplier. It purported to allow the buyer to use the goods before title came to be passed.
Held: The owner’s appeal failed. It did . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 February 2021; Ref: scu.414968