On 28 September the Amsterdam District Court rendered its decision on a claim of a physical supplier against an ship owner and time charterer for payment of bunkers which were sold and delivered via OW Bunker entities. Also ING Bank and the trustees were involved in the proceedings. In short the court held that a bunker requisition form and a bunker delivery note did not create a contractual relationship on the basis of which the owner or charterer were obliged to pay for the stem. The court further held that the physical suppliers’ T&C cannot be invoked against the owner or charterer. The physical supplier also presented a claim in tort in that the owner or charterer continued using the bunkers for the propulsion of the vessel, despite the fact that the physical supplier invoked its retention of title clause against the owner or charterer. The court held that the physical supplier can only invoke its right of retention of title against its contractual counterpart, OW Bunker, which the physical supplier failed to do. The court concludes that for that reason the owner and charterer did not act in tort. The physical supplier also tried to rely on a maritime lien under US law, which would allow the physical supplier to enforce its claim against OW Bunker against the vessel. The court held a maritime lien under US law cannot be created by contract. Even if a maritime lien would exist by law, the conditions for a maritime lien were not met because clearly the physical supplier did not contract with a representative of the vessel but instead with OW Bunker. Also under Dutch law a claim for unpaid bunkers of a physical supplier against a bunker trader does not qualify as a maritime claim.