Owner and/or Demise Charterer of the vessel A SYMPHONY (IMO No. 9249324) v Owner and/or Demise Charterer of the vessel SEA JUSTICE (IMO No. 9309514)

[2024] SGHC 37 High Court (General Division) 9 February 2024 • HC/ADM 61/2021 ( HC/RA 247/2023,HC/RA 246/2023 ) • 84 min read

22 cases cited (17 SG, 5 foreign) Cited by 1 case

Catchwords

Admiralty And Shipping — Admiralty jurisdiction and arrest — Stay of action proceedings Admiralty And Shipping — Practice and procedure of action in rem — Duty of disclosure

Practice Areas

Admiralty And Shipping

Judges (1)

Kristy Tan Delivered

Counsel (9)

Asia Legal LLC Firm Incisive Law LLC Firm Gerry Zhang Counsel Defendant Gho Sze Kee Counsel Plaintiff John Seow Counsel Defendant Kunal Mirpuri Counsel Defendant Liao Yanting Counsel Plaintiff Loh Wai Yue Counsel Defendant Timothy Tan Counsel Plaintiff

Parties (2)

THE OWNER AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERER OF THE VESSEL “A SYMPHONY” Plaintiff THE OWNER AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERER OF THE VESSEL “SEA JUSTICE” Defendant

Case Significance

The "Sea Justice" [2024] SGHC 37 was decided by Kristy Tan JC in the General Division of the High Court on 9 February 2024, in Admiralty in Rem No 61 of 2021 (Registrar's Appeals Nos 246 and 247 of 2023). The dispute arose from a collision between the oil tanker "A Symphony" and the general cargo vessel "Sea Justice" off the port of Qingdao, in Chinese territorial waters of the People's Republic of China. The respective vessel owners commenced proceedings in the Qingdao Maritime Court ("QMC"): the owner of the "Sea Justice" constituted a limitation fund for maritime claims, the owner of the "A Symphony" registered claims against that fund, and both parties commenced liability actions against each other.

Separately, the owner of the "A Symphony" commenced HC/ADM 61/2021 in Singapore as an admiralty action in rem against the "Sea Justice". More than a year after the collision, the "Sea Justice" sailed into Singapore waters and was arrested on the plaintiff's application, after which the former owner entered an appearance and provided security for the vessel's release. The catchwords cover Admiralty and Shipping (Admiralty jurisdiction and arrest, Stay of action proceedings) and (Practice and procedure of action in rem, Duty of disclosure). The judgment references the Arbitration Act, the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act, the International Arbitration Act and the Limitation Act. The plaintiff was represented by Asia Legal LLC; the defendant by Incisive Law LLC.

Summary

This matter before the General Division of the High Court arose from a collision between the oil tanker "A Symphony" and the cargo vessel "Sea Justice" off Qingdao, China, with the owner of "A Symphony" having commenced an admiralty action in rem in Singapore and arrested the "Sea Justice" while related proceedings were on foot in the Qingdao Maritime Court. After an Assistant Registrar ordered a stay on forum non conveniens grounds, ordered the return of the security provided, but declined to set aside the arrest, the parties filed cross-appeals concerning the retention of security and the duty of disclosure in actions in rem. The court dismissed both appeals, leaving standing the orders that the Singapore security be returned to the defendant, that the application to set aside the warrant of arrest be dismissed, and that the plaintiff pay the defendant S$88,786.53 for an expert's fees.

What was the dispute in The "Sea Justice" [2024] SGHC 37?

Decided by Kristy Tan JC on 9 February 2024, the case arose from a collision between the oil tanker "A Symphony" and the cargo vessel "Sea Justice" off Qingdao, China. It addressed a stay of the Singapore admiralty action in rem and the duty of disclosure on vessel arrest.

How did the "Sea Justice" come to be arrested in Singapore?

The owner of the "A Symphony" commenced HC/ADM 61/2021 in Singapore as an admiralty action in rem. More than a year after the collision, the "Sea Justice" sailed into Singapore waters and was arrested on the plaintiff's application; the former owner then provided security for release.

Statutes Cited

Arbitration Act (Cap 10) Cases on this Act →

s 1(1)

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act

s 26 s 26(1)

International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A) Cases on this Act →

Limitation Act (Cap 163) Cases on this Act →

Cases Cited (22)

SG (1)

[2023] SGHCR 24

SLR (16)

[1993] 2 SLR(R) 136 [1994] 3 SLR(R) 574 [1998] 2 SLR(R) 922 [2003] 3 SLR(R) 362 [2004] 2 SLR(R) 457 [2006] 1 SLR(R) 358 [2006] 3 SLR(R) 854 [2008] 4 SLR(R) 994 [2010] 1 SLR 1192 [2010] 3 SLR 294 [2012] 2 SLR 289 [2013] 4 SLR 718 [2017] 1 SLR 907 [2017] 5 SLR 934 [2018] 1 SLR 180 [2022] 3 SLR 174

UK (3)

[1974] 3 WLR 16 [1979] QB 377 [1987] AC 460

AU (1)

[2014] FCAFC 90

HK (1)

[2022] HKCA 157