31 Jul 2007 : The “Vasiliy Golovnin” [2007] SGHC 116 Admiralty – action in rem – charter party – amended New York Produce Exchange (NYPE) terms – port of discharge named in three of the four bills of lading – change of discharge port – damage to cargo – setting aside of warrant of arrest of chartered vessel – failure to disclose material facts – issue estoppel – refusal to order damages for wrongful arrest of sister ship – High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123, 1985 Rev Ed), s 3(1)(g)and (h).
30 Mar 2007: Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd v Samudera Shipping Line Ltd [2007] SGHC 41 Action in tort – loss of cargo – arbitration agreement – application to stay the arbitration proceedings – whether plaintiff is party to the arbitration agreement – Arbitration Act (Cap 10, 2002 Rev Ed) s 6.
27 Mar 2007: The "Asia Star" [2007] SGCA 17 CARRIAGE OF GOODS – Appeal – Charterparty – Vegoilvoy Tanker Voyage Charterparty 1950, cll 1, 15 and 17 – vessel unfit to carry the designated cargo – cancellation of charterparty – whether there was a breach of the term relating to the vessel’s description – “epoxy coated” – “minimal” breakdown – whether there was a breach of the ship owners’ obligation under clause 1(a) of the Vegoilvoy form – whether clause 1(b) of the Vegoilvoy form would protect the ship owners from the consequences of a breach of clause 1(a) – Hague Visby Rules, Art III r 1(2) – appeal dismissed.
1 Dec 2006: Swift-Fortune Ltd v Magnifica Marine SA [2006] SGCA 42 MAREVA INJUNCTIONS - Arbitration - Appeal from Swift-Fortune Ltd v Magnifica Marine SA [2006] 2 SLR 323 setting aside a Mareva injunction restraining a company, from disposing of or dealing with its assets in Singapore pending arbitration proceedings between the parties in London - grant of Mareva interlocutory relief in aid of “international arbitrations” - court’s power to grant interim measures - International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) s 12(7); s 5(2) - Model Law, art 9 - “foreign arbitration”.
13 Oct 2006:The "Emma Maersk" [2006] SGHC 180 MAREVA INJUNCTIONS - Arbitration - Appeal from Swift-Fortune Ltd v Magnifica Marine SA [2006] 2 SLR 323 setting aside a Mareva injunction restraining a company, from disposing of or dealing with its assets in Singapore pending arbitration proceedings between the parties in London - grant of Mareva interlocutory relief in aid of “international arbitrations” - court’s power to grant interim measures - International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) s 12(7); s 5(2) - Model Law, art 9 - “foreign arbitration”.
11 Sep 2006:Marina Offshore Pte Ltd v China Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Another [2006] SGCA 28 MARINE INSURANCE - appeal from Marina Offshore Pte Ltd v China Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Another [2006] SLR 800 ( 30 December 2005) – appeal allowed – policies were time policy – s39(1) Marine Insurance Act (Cap 387, 1994) – no implied warranty that at the commencement of the voyage the vessel shall be seaworthy for the adventure insured – perils of the sea sole operative cause of the loss in terms of the policies.
29 Jun 2006:The “Asia Star” [2006] SGHC 115 CARRIAGE OF GOODS – voyage charterparty – Vegoilvoy form – vessel unfit to carry the agreed cargo – cancellation of charterparty – owner of the vessel to pay damages to charterer.
2 Feb 2006: The "Inai Selasih" (ex "Geopotes X") [2006] SGCA 4 Appeal from The "Inai Selasih" (ex "Geopotes X") [2005] SGHC 132 (25 July 2005) – decision to set aside writ and warrant of arrest affirmed.
21 Nov 2005: Treasure Valley Group Ltd v Saputra Teddy & Anor [2005] SGHC 217; [2006] 1 SLR 358 Plaintiff had the defendant’s ship arrested, defendant applied to set aside arrest of vessel, defendants granted liberty to treat crew wages as part of Sheriff's expenses, as vessel already sold it was considered a moot point as to whether the plaintiff’s actions constituted bad faith or material non-disclosure, defendants' inconsistent conduct amounted to approbation and reprobation of arrest, but this did not bar them from pleading that there was malice in bringing the action for possession, defendants not permitted to claim for damages for wrongful arrest without setting aside arrest.
28 Oct 2005: Allied Marine Services Ltd v LMJ International Ltd [2005] SGHC 201; [2006] 1 SLR 261 Dispute over charterparty, arbitration proceedings in London resulted in award in favour of AMS, AMS applied for Mareva injunction with respect to cargo of iron ore belonging to IMJ that was on board a vessel bunkering in Singapore, application dismissed, if the injunction would interfere with third party’s business the rights of third party must prevail, delay and inconvenience would be suffered by innocent third parties like the vessel’s owner and other cargo owners, indemnity offered by AMS was unacceptably low, in any case the furnishing of an indemnity could not in and of itself cannot justify the inconvenience and uncertainties faced by the third parties.
29 Sep 2005: Bayswater Carriers Pte Ltd v QBE Insurance (International) Pte [2005] SGHC 185; [2006] 1 SLR 69 Marine insurance, tug lost in hijacking, whether loss suffered by assured covered under marine hull policy, piracy or violent theft by persons from outside assured's vessel was the proximate cause of assured's loss, piracy not limited to high seas for purposes of an insurance policy, negligence of master of vessel in failing to keep proper watch was not the proximate cause of the loss and did not a bar against QBE’s liability, no evidence that the assured did not take reasonable measures mitigate loss.
14 Sep 2005: UCO Bank v Golden Shore Transportation Pte Ltd [2005] SGCA 42; [2006] 1 SLR 1 Bills of lading, order bills transferred from shipper to appellant consignee via negotiating bank without indorsement in favour of negotiating bank, whether consignee becoming lawful holder of bills, whether consignee having title to sue on bills, court of appeal held that the four bills of lading were transferable and therefore covered by the Bills of Lading Act, upon receipt of the bills from negotiating bank the appellant became the lawful holder of the bills, fact that the shippers did not indorse the bills of lading to the appellant did not mean that the appellant was not their lawful holder, s2(4) of the Act was not applicable to the present situation.
25 Jul 2005:The "Inai Selasih" (ex "Geopotes X") [2005] SGHC 132 WRONGFUL ARREST – CHARTER PARTY - Defendants sought to set aside a Writ of Summons and Warrant of Arrest issued against their vessel for breach of an agreement (MOU) relating to use and hire of the plaintiff's dredger. The MOU was not an agreement to charter but rather a joint venture involving the use of an identifiable ship Whether ss 3(1)( h ) and 4(4)( b ) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act were fulfilled. Held: the alleged charter party was not intended to create a valid charter of the dredger, it was a sham which gave rise to no legal rights and obligations. Therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to assert its claim by proceeding in rem against the defendant's vessel . Warrant of Arrest could also have been set aside on the basis of a breach of the duty to disclose material facts. Damages for wrongful arrest granted, release of vessel ordered.
20 Jul 2005: The ‘Rainbow Joy’ [2005] SGCA 36 engineer injured in course of work on ship, admiralty action for negligence and/or breach of contract or duty resulting in the injury to his right eye, forum non conveniens.
4 Apr 2005: UCO Bank v Golden Shore Transportation Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 65 BILL OF LADING - TRANSFER - LAWFUL HOLDER – TITLE TO SUE Shipments were financed by letters of credit (which also operated as negotiation credit), issued by the plaintiff blank. Defendant shipowner issued original bills of lading. Buyers arranged with shipowner to issue switch bills of lading – these were presented by the end receivers when taking delivery of the cargo. Plaintiff bank sued the shipowner on the original bills, contending it had delivered the cargo without production of the original bills. Plaintiff only had title to sue if it was the lawful holder of the original bills. - Bills of Lading Act . HSBC was the negotiating bank - it forwarded the original bills to the plaintiff without any indorsement. Held: Original bills were not transferred from the shippers to the plaintiff nor was HSBC acting on the shippers' behalf when the original bills were presented to and accepted by the plaintiff. Plaintiff was therefore not lawful holder of the original bills of lading.
26 Jan 2005: AP Moller-Maersk A/S (trading as Maersk Sealand) and Another v Special Entertainment Events, Inc and Others [2005] SGCA 6 CARGO STORAGE CHARGES - Two vessels carrying cargo arrived in Singapore but could not deliver cargo because of disputes between respondents as to who was entitled to it. Cargo stranded at godown of the Port of Singapore Authority (PSA) – storage charges accrued. In initial proceedings, appellants ordered to pay the outstanding storage charges upfront to PSA in return for security from the respondents – appeal against this order. Carrier has a lien over a cargo in respect of freight and reasonably necessary storage charges. Party who is ultimately adjudged to be entitled to the cargo, will be required to pay the freight and all charges (including storage) reasonably incurred. Order did not affix appellants with ultimate liability to bear storage charges nor did it impose a new obligation on them. Amount of security altered to include financing costs.
25 Jan 2005: Projector
SA v Marubeni International Petroleum (S) Pte Ltd
[2005] SGCA 5 Cargo delivered without bill of lading. Letter of indemnity
given instead. Interim mandatory injunction. Whether
breach of letter of indemnity.
13 Jan 2005: The "Rainbow
Joy" [2005] SGHC 9 Filipino engineer signed a contract in the Philippines
to work on a ship. Signed another employment contract,
complying with the laws of Hong Kong. Injured on the
ship. Forum non conveniens.
2004
The “Acrux” [2004] SGHC 198; [2004] 4 SLR 531
Vessel
arrested due to failure to make payment by deadline.
Part payment made and shortfall paid later under protest.
A declaration of rights regarding payment is within admiralty
jurisdiction. Entitlement to security. Section 3(1)(l)
High Court ( Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123,
2001 Rev Ed).
The “Hyundai Fortune” [2004]
SGHC 45; [2004] 2 SLR 213 Conflict of Laws. Choice of jurisdiction. Stay of action.
Whether proceedings in Singapore should be stayed in
favour of jurisdiction in bill of lading. No stay granted.
Hub
Warrior Sdn Bhd v QBE Insurance (Malaysia) Bhd
[2004] SGHC 279 Marine Insurance. Claim for a replacement crankshaft
after damage to crankpin found Negligence, proximate
cause, said not to be a relevant peril but wear and tear.
rectification.
MAN
B & W S E Asia Pte Ltd
and Another v PT Bumi International Tankers
Singapore Court of Appeal [2004] SGHC 8 (9 March 2004) Negligence: whether supplier and manufacturer of engine to a new building owed
a duty of care to shipowner: whether shipowner can recover for pure economic
loss.
In this decision, the Court of Appeal, overruling the
judgment at first instance , held that PT Bumi could not sue in tort
an engine manufacturer and its Singaporean supplier for pure economic loss that
it suffered as a consequence of defects in the engine. There was no contract
between PT
Bumi and the defendants. The Court of Appeal held that neither manufacturer
nor supplier owed a duty of care to PT Bumi. In reaching its decision, the
Court attached importance to the limited recourse that PT Bumi had been content
to accept under its contract with the shipbuilder. The
Court said that the correct approach was not to ask whether there was any
justification for depriving PT Bumi of a remedy or whether the contract had deprived
PT Bumi of its right to
sue the sub-contractors, but whether there were any compelling reasons to
extend the law and afford a separate remedy to PT Bumi. It was not for the court
to help a party, after the event, to improve his commercial bargain.
Ng Keng Yong v Public Prosecutor and Another Appeal
[2004] SGHC 171; [2004] 4 SLR 89 Collision at sea.
Vessels on reciprocal courses. Death by negligence. Whether
vessels approaching each other so as to involve risk
of collision. International Regulations for Preventing
Collisions at Sea 1972, Rule 14(a). Whether causing death
by a negligent act.
Royal Global Exports Pte Ltd and Others v Good Stream
Co Ltd and Another [2004] SGHC 174; [2004] 4 SLR 247 Vessel sank, loss of cargo on board. Procedure. Production
of documents. Mareva injunction in respect of insurance
proceeds held by owner of ship, being a one ship company.
The "RSS Courageous" NG
Keng Yong v Public Prosecutor
Singapore High Court (13 August 2004) Collision between navy ship
and merchant ship: criminal offence of causing death by
negligent act under section 304A Singapore Penal Code:
vessels on reciprocal courses: whether involved risk of
collision: breach of Rule 14(a) Collision Regulations:
standard of care expected of trainee officer: whether contributory
negligence of merchant ship broke chain of causation.
The "Seaway" [2004]
SGCA 57 Vessel damaged wharf of appellant. Question of limitation
of liability. Interpretation of s136(1)(d) of the Merchant
Shipping Act.
Sunlight
Mercantile Pte Ltd v Ever Lucky Shipping Co Ltd [2004]
1 SLR 171 York Antwerp Rules 1974: whether unseaworthiness of vessel affected right to
general average contribution : whether exemption clauses in Bills of Lading excluding
liability for deck cargo absolved shipowners from actionable fault.
The “Sunrise Crane” [2004]
SGCA 42; [2004] 4 SLR 715 Negligence. Limitation of liability. Section 136 Merchant
Shipping Act (Cap 179, 1996 Rev Ed). Whether owner of
vessel discharging dangerous cargo owes duty of care
to inform receiving vessel about dangerous nature of
cargo immediately prior to discharge.
2003
ABC Co v XYZ Co Ltd Singapore High Court (8 May 2003) The applicant applied to set aside an award made in an arbitration governed by the International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A) ("IAA"), which makes the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration part of Singapore law. After the time limit for filing an application to set aside an award, the applicant applied to the court to amend its application by adding six new grounds for setting aside. The court held that such an amendment could be allowed only if the new grounds arose out of the same facts or substantially the same facts as the original grounds.
Admiral Chartering Ltd v Owners of Ship or Vessel "Rainbow Spring" Singapore Court of Appeal (29 July 2003) Admiral, as time charterer of "Rainbow Spring", brought an in rem action against and arrested the vessel for damages for breach of the time charterparty. Her registered owners, Rainbow Spring Shipping Ltd Inc ("RSSL") entered appearance and applied to set aside the writ of summons and the warrant of arrest on the ground that RSSL was not a party to the time charterparty. Under section 4(4) of the Singapore High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (cap 123) (the "Act"), the court only has jurisdiction to entertain an action in rem for breach of charterparty if the person who would be liable in personam on the claim is the owner of the vessel, both when the cause of action arose and when the action was brought.
The 'An Ji Jiang' [2003] SGHC 224; [2003] 4 SLR 348 Voyage charter - whether Asbatankvoy incorporated - operation of cancellation clause - measure of loss for wrongful termination.
The 'ASL Power' [2003] 1 SLR 545 (SGHC) Title to sue - cargo lost before payment under letter of crdit - c & f transaction - title passing on payment.
Bandung Shipping Pte Ltd v Keppel TatLee Bank Ltd [2003] 1 SLR 295 (SGCA) Bills of lading - discussion of endorsements - straight and negotiable.
The"Dilmun Fulma" [2003] SGHC 270 (31 October 2003) Pan-United Shipyard Pte Ltd commenced an action in rem against and arrested "Dilmun Fulmar" for claims under a repair contract. The owners of "Dilmun Fulmar" entered into a settlement agreement with Pan-United to pay the claim in three instalments. The vessel was released and sold to a Halisen Shipping Co Ltd. The vessel's original owners failed to pay the balance due under the settlement agreement. Pan-United re-arrested the vessel in the original action in rem. Halisen applied successfully to set aside the arrest.
Evergreen International SA v Volkswagen Group Singapore Pte Ltd [2003] SGHC 142; [2004] 2 SLR 457 Anti-suit injunction - Collision in Singapore waters between the Ever Glory and the Hual Trinita. Collision liability settled between shipowners - limitation suit begun in Singapore by plaintiffs, owners of the Ever Glory - limitation decree granted under the 1957 Convention - defendants were cargo interests on the Hual Trinita - were aware of limitation proceedings - but did not seek to participate or prove their claims against the fund - defendants arrested sister ship of the Ever Glory in Belgium and commenced a tort action in Belgium with a higher limit based on the 1976 Convention. The Belgian courts did not recognise the limitation decree or fund in Singapore - anti-suit injunction granted.
Jurong Engineering Ltd v Black & Veatch Singapore Pte Ltd [2003] SGHC 292
(26 November 2003) Jurong Engineering and Vetach Singapore entered into a contract for a plant in Singapore. The arbitration clause in their contract states that the parties agreed to submit to SIAC arbitration and to the rules of arbitration promulgated by the SIAC. The arbitration was a domestic arbitration. The trial judge held that in the absence of any specifications in the arbitration clause, SIAC Domestic Arbitration Rules would apply to domestic arbitration even though the rules were not in existence at the time of the contract.
The 'Seaway' [2003] SGHC 315; [2004] 2 SLR 577 Collision - allision - the dredger Seaway allided with and damaged a privately owned wharf - s 136 Merchant Shipping Act (Sing) - fell within limitation provision.
Sunlight Mercantile Pte Ltd v Ever Lucky Shippping Co Ltd [2003] SGCA 171; [2004] 1 SLR 171 Carriage of goods - logs - on a bulk log carrier from West African ports to India - deck carriage - outside Hague-Visby Rules - vessel unseaworthy - claim for general average for towing of the vessel that was made necessary by the unseaworthiness of the ship - Rule D of York Antwerp Rules and the meaning of 'fault' - primary judge followed Langley J in The 'Imvros' [1999] 1 Lloyd's Rep 848 and held that wide exclusion in the bills('howsoever arising:') included nseaworthiness of the ship at the commencement of the voyage. The Court of Appeal disagreed - insufficient regard was held to have been given to the absolute obligation of the owner to send the ship out in a seaworthy state at the commencement of the voyage. A high degree of precision in the exclusion clause was required - discussion of authorities on required specificity of such an exclusion or exculpation clause.
UCO Bank v Golden Shore Transportation Pte Ltd; The "Asean Pioneer", Singapore High Court (25 June 2003) Forum: whether bill of lading clause a jurisdiction clause: whether strong cause against stay: use of switched bills of lading: delivery without production of bills of lading: whether defence of consent or acquiescence. UCO issued letters of credit for payment of logs shipped from Malaysia to Kandla, India on board Golden Shore's vessel "Asean Pioneer". UCO became holders of the bills of lading issued for the shipments. At the request of UCO's customer, Golden Shore issued a new set of switched bills of lading without requiring the original bills to be exchanged. The buyers in India presented the switched bills and obtained delivery of the logs. UCO, as holders of the original bills, claimed damages from Golden Shore. Golden Shore applied to stay the action in Singapore on the basis of an exclusive jurisdiction clause in the bills of lading. The Singapore High Court dismissed Golden Shore's application.
29 Oct 2002: Admiral Chartering Ltd v Owners of Ship "Rainbow Spring",
Singapore High Court Admiral, as time charterers of "Rainbow Spring", brought an in rem action against and arrested the vessel for damages for breach of the time charterparty. Her registered owners, Rainbow Spring Shipping Ltd Inc ("RSSL") entered appearance and applied to set aside the writ of summons and the warrant of arrest on the ground that RSSL was not a party to the time charterparty. Under section 4(4) of the Singapore High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (cap 123) (the "Act"), the court only has jurisdiction to entertain an action in rem for breach of charterparty if the person who would be liable in personam on the claim is the owner of the vessel, both when the cause of action arose and when the action was brought.
23 Apr 2002: Sumitomo
Corporation (Singapore) Pte Ltd v The Owners of the
Ship "Alexandrea" [2002] 3 SLR 56 Sumitomo was an intermediate
party in a chain of contracts for the supply of marine
fuel oil ("MFO"). Sumitomo brought an action in rem against the bunker
tanker "ALEXANDREA" for negligence in supplying contaminated MFO to a ship "FRONT
MELODY". The issue arose whether admiralty jurisdiction had been improperly invoked.
The court held that it had; the ship referred to in s.4(4) must be the same ship
as that referred to in s.3(1). In this case, the ships were different.
