Full Breakdown
Thai Sailors Sue Shipping Firm Over March Attack in the Strait of Hormuz
7/10/2026, 10:40:17 PM
Attack on the Mayuree Naree
On 11 March 2026 the Thai-flagged cargo vessel Mayuree Naree was struck by two projectiles while transiting the Strait of Hormuz, a key oil-and-gas corridor. The assault occurred amid the U.S.–Israeli military campaign against Iran that began on 28 February 2026. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps had warned that ships passing the strait could be targeted. Three crew members were killed and twenty were rescued; the vessel was carrying 23 crew overall.
Legal Claim Before the Central Labour Court
On 10 July 2026 Thailand’s Central Labour Court accepted a petition filed by three former crew members—Panithi Tumkaew (43), Noppadon Wongsuvan (33) and Suradech Manpuen—seeking damages for the attack. The court scheduled a hearing to define the disputed issues for 28 September 2026 at 9 a.m. The plaintiffs allege negligence by the ship’s owner and related companies for sending the vessel into an active conflict zone.
Parties Involved
- Precious Shipping Public Company Limited (PSL) – owner of the Mayuree Naree.
- Precious Flowers Co., Ltd. and Great Circle Shipping Agency Co., Ltd. – affiliated firms named in the claim.
- Sathaporn Hoksee – captain of the vessel.
- Kunpat Singhathong – lawyer representing the three sailors.
Numbers and Damages Sought
Each sailor requests at least 1 million baht (? US$30,000) in damages from the companies and the captain. The claim also seeks compensation for medical expenses, loss of earnings and the long-term impact of diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). To date the plaintiffs have received only two months’ wages and reimbursement for personal belongings lost in the attack, despite having nine-month employment contracts that had not yet expired.
Official Positions
Precious Shipping told the Stock Exchange of Thailand that it has not been served with any court documents and maintains it has fulfilled all legal and contractual obligations. The company added that it has continuously provided care and support to the affected crew members and their families since the incident. The firm also noted that the vessel had implemented enhanced security precautions and kept contact with maritime security coordination centres during the transit.
Criticism of Compensation
Former crewman Noppadon Wongsuvan described the compensation as “inadequate and not up to international standards.” Panithi Tumkaew, who has worked for the company for 11 years, says the trauma forces him to take sedatives and avoid loud noises, leaving him unable to resume work at sea. Both plaintiffs argue that the employer’s payments fall far short of what is required for long-term PTSD treatment.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
- The ship’s owners assert they have not received formal court documents, while the plaintiffs’ lawyer confirms the petition was filed and accepted by the court.
- Precise medical documentation of the sailors’ PTSD diagnoses has not been made public.
- No comment was obtained from the affiliated companies or the captain’s representatives.
Verbatim Quotes
- “All three have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and are unlikely to work as sailors again,” — Kunpat Singhathong, lawyer
- “They paid and they said to us don't ask for more, what we gave is already a lot,” — Noppadon Wongsuvan, former crewman
- “These days, I'm taking sedatives ... I take them and sleep,” — Panithi Tumkaew, former crewman
- “Since the incident occurred, the company has continuously provided care and support to the affected crew members and their families,” — Precious Shipping, public statement
Next Steps
The Labour Court will hear arguments in September 2026 and decide whether Precious Shipping and the associated firms breached their duty of care. The outcome could set a precedent for employer liability when commercial vessels operate in zones of armed conflict, influencing future maritime risk assessments and compensation standards.
