In its judgment of 14 July 2026, the Court of Appeal, The Hague, in the case Orient Rise Shipping Limited v Aurora Marine Fuels Limited, 200.349.078/01 considered whether a bunker supplier could continue to rely on security provided by a shipowner to obtain the release of a precautionary attachment of the seagoing vessel M/V BROAD RISE.
I. Introduction
In its judgment of 14 July 2026, the Court of Appeal, The Hague, considered whether a bunker supplier could continue to rely on security provided by a shipowner to obtain the release of a precautionary attachment of the seagoing vessel M/V BROAD RISE.
The dispute arose from bunkers supplied to the vessel while it was under time charter. The time charterer, Cardinal Trade SA, failed to pay Aurora Marine Fuels Limited’s invoice of USD 910,350. Aurora subsequently arrested the vessel in Rotterdam, although the vessel was owned by Orient Rise Shipping Limited rather than Cardinal. Orient obtained the release of the vessel by providing security under the Rotterdam Guarantee Form 2008.
The central issue was whether Aurora’s bunker claim against Cardinal remained enforceable against the Panamanian-registered vessel in the Netherlands. The Court of Appeal held that it did not. Under Article 10:160 of the Dutch Civil Code, enforceability against the vessel had to exist under the law of the vessel’s state of registration. The relevant claim was time-barred under Panamanian law.
The Court further held that the substitute security could be reclaimed before the ordinary expiry of the guarantee. Although Article 705 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure applies directly to attachments rather than to substitute security, the grounds for lifting an attachment are relevant when assessing under Article 6:248 of the Dutch Civil Code whether maintaining a guarantee is acceptable according to standards of reasonableness and fairness.
As Aurora’s underlying claim could no longer be enforced against the vessel, the Court ordered Aurora to release the guarantee and return the original guarantee document to Orient.
II. Background of the Dispute
Orient Rise Shipping Limited is the owner of the M/V BROAD RISE, a seagoing vessel registered in Panama. In December 2021, the vessel was time-chartered to Cardinal Trade SA.
Cardinal purchased bunkers for the vessel from Aurora Marine Fuels Limited, a bunker supplier based in London. According to Aurora, its general terms and conditions governed the bunker contract and provided for the application of US maritime law.
The bunkers were physically delivered to the vessel in Tianjin, China, on 1 January 2022 by Chimbusco Marine Bunker Co. Ltd, which had been engaged by Aurora. Aurora paid Chimbusco for the delivery. Cardinal, however, did not pay Aurora’s invoice of USD 910,350.
Aurora sought to recover its claim through the vessel. On 27 August 2024, it applied to the Rotterdam District Court for permission to attach the M/V BROAD RISE as security for its claim. Aurora argued that its outstanding bunker claim could be recovered against the vessel both under the law governing the bunker contract and under the law of the vessel’s state of registration.
The vessel was attached on 3 September 2024.
To secure the vessel’s prompt release and avoid further operational consequences, Orient provided substitute security on 10 September 2024 in the form of a Rotterdam Guarantee Form 2008. The guarantee, issued by the West of England Ship Owners Mutual Insurance Association (Luxembourg), secured Aurora’s asserted claim up to a maximum amount of USD 1 million. The attachment was lifted the following day.
The guarantee expressly stated that it was provided without prejudice, including without prejudice to the right to demand its release.
Orient subsequently commenced summary proceedings seeking an order requiring Aurora to confirm that the guarantee had lapsed and to return the original guarantee. The Rotterdam District Court rejected Orient’s application on 6 December 2024.
Separately, Aurora on 24 October 2024 commenced proceedings on the merits against Orient, seeking payment of USD 910,350 on the basis that its claim against Cardinal could be recovered from Orient’s vessel. On 23 July 2025, the Rotterdam District Court dismissed Aurora’s claim in its entirety and upheld Orient’s counterclaim for damages resulting from the attachment.
Aurora took steps to appeal that judgment, but the Court of Appeal noted that the appeal writ did not appear to have been registered with the Court of Appeal. This raised the possibility that the judgment on the merits had already become final and that the guarantee had consequently expired in accordance with its own terms.
III. The Parties’ Positions
Orient argued on appeal that Aurora had no enforceable claim against the M/V BROAD RISE and that the guarantee should therefore be released.
According to Orient, Aurora’s bunker claim was no longer enforceable against the vessel under the potentially relevant legal systems. Orient relied in particular on Panamanian law as the law of the vessel’s state of registration. It referred to Article 1651(6) of the Panamanian Commercial Code, under which actions relating to services, provisions or supplies of goods or money for the construction, repair or supply of vessels or maintenance of their crews are subject to a one-year limitation period.
Orient further maintained that the guarantee had been provided solely to obtain the prompt release of the vessel and mitigate losses arising from the attachment. Providing substitute security should not place a shipowner in a worse legal position than it would have occupied had the vessel remained under attachment and the shipowner immediately applied for its release.
Aurora disputed Orient’s position and brought a cross-appeal challenging, among other matters, the jurisdiction of the Dutch courts.
On the substantive issue, Aurora maintained that US maritime law governed the bunker contract through its general terms and conditions. In its view, that law provided it with a valid maritime lien or right of recourse against the vessel.
Aurora further challenged the application of Panamanian substantive law. It argued that, if Article 10:160 of the Dutch Civil Code referred to Panamanian law, Panamanian private international law should also be taken into account. According to Aurora, this would ultimately refer the matter to the law applicable to the bunker contract and therefore to US maritime law.
Aurora also disputed the legal basis upon which the guarantee could be reclaimed. It argued that the Rotterdam Guarantee Form contemplated the continuation of the security until a final decision on the secured claim and that Article 705 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure, which governs the lifting of precautionary attachments, was not directly applicable to substitute security.
IV. The Court’s Analysis
The Court of Appeal first confirmed the jurisdiction of the Dutch courts. The attachment had been levied in the Netherlands and the substitute guarantee was closely connected to that attachment.
The central issue was whether Aurora’s claim against Cardinal could still be enforced against the M/V BROAD RISE. Under Article 10:160 of the Dutch Civil Code, this required the claim to be enforceable under the law of the vessel’s state of registration, in this case Panama.
The Court rejected Aurora’s argument that Panamanian private international law should be applied and could lead to US maritime law. Under Article 10:5 of the Dutch Civil Code, renvoi is excluded. The reference to Panamanian law therefore meant Panamanian substantive law.
Under Article 1651(6) of the Panamanian Commercial Code, the relevant claim was subject to a one-year limitation period. Aurora had not established that a different limitation period applied or that the limitation period had been interrupted. The claim was therefore time-barred and could no longer be enforced against the vessel in the Netherlands. It was consequently unnecessary to determine whether Aurora had a maritime lien or other right of recourse under US maritime law.
The Court then considered whether Aurora could continue to retain the Rotterdam Guarantee provided to obtain the vessel’s release. Although Article 705(2) of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure directly governs the lifting of attachments rather than substitute security, its grounds may be taken into account when applying the standards of reasonableness and fairness under Article 6:248 of the Dutch Civil Code.
The Court emphasized that the Rotterdam Guarantee Form 2008 expressly preserves the right to seek release of the guarantee. Providing substitute security to secure the prompt release of a vessel therefore does not prevent the shipowner from subsequently challenging the creditor’s entitlement to that security.
Since Aurora’s claim could no longer be enforced against the M/V BROAD RISE, continued maintenance of the guarantee was unacceptable according to standards of reasonableness and fairness. The Court therefore ordered Aurora to release and return the guarantee, upheld Orient’s main appeal and dismissed Aurora’s cross-appeal.
V. Conclusion and Practical Implications
The judgment confirms that the law of the vessel’s state of registration can be decisive when determining whether a claim against a charterer remains enforceable against the vessel. Here, Panamanian substantive law applied under Article 10:160 of the Dutch Civil Code, without renvoi. Because the bunker claim was time-barred under Panamanian law, it could no longer be enforced against the M/V BROAD RISE in the Netherlands.
The decision also clarifies that providing substitute security under the Rotterdam Guarantee Form 2008 does not prevent a shipowner from subsequently seeking its release. Although Article 705(2) of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure does not directly govern substitute security, its grounds for lifting an attachment may be relevant when applying the standards of reasonableness and fairness under Article 6:248 of the Dutch Civil Code.
For maritime creditors, the judgment highlights the importance of checking the lex registrationis and any applicable limitation period before arresting a vessel for a charterer’s debt. For shipowners, it confirms that providing security to obtain the prompt release of an arrested vessel does not necessarily prevent a later challenge to the creditor’s entitlement to retain that security.
