BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., SINGAPORE BRANCH v Owner of the vessel(s) OCEAN GOBY (IMO No. 9812406)

Facts

Bank of America, N.A., Singapore Branch (BofA) lent to Da Hui Shipping (Pte) Ltd and An Rong Shipping Pte Ltd as joint and several borrowers, secured by mortgages over their vessels, including An Rong's Ocean Goby and Ocean Jack. After default, Da Hui's vessel was sold and part of the proceeds went to repay tranches used to refinance An Rong's vessels. In August 2021 BofA arrested the Ocean Goby and Ocean Jack in HC/ADM 92/2021 and HC/ADM 94/2021; the vessels were sold and the proceeds paid into court. PetroChina International (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Societe Generale, Singapore Branch (SocGen) intervened as cargo owners claiming for mis-delivery, and priorities were determined in 2023.

Da Hui then brought HC/OA 418/2023, an in personam application seeking a declaration of a contribution claim against An Rong and a right to be subrogated to BofA's extinguished mortgages. The High Court dismissed it, and the Court of Appeal dismissed Da Hui's appeal on 23 June 2025, holding that an in personam action was the wrong procedural route for a proprietary claim against sale proceeds held in an action in rem. PetroChina and SocGen applied for payment out of the remaining proceeds. On 8 August 2025 Da Hui began two new admiralty actions in rem against the sale proceeds, and by SUM 2337 and SUM 2338 of 2025 sought a case management stay of the payment out applications until those actions and a re-ordering of priorities were resolved.

Issues

1. Whether Da Hui's new admiralty actions gave rise to a real risk of issues overlapping with the payment out applications
2. Whether the Court of Appeal's remarks had prescribed the procedural path Da Hui was now following
3. Whether the balance of prejudice and other circumstances justified a case management stay

Holding

The High Court dismissed SUMs 2337 and 2338, finding no real risk of overlapping issues and holding that it would in any event have declined to exercise its discretion to grant the stays.

Reasoning

A case management stay requires, first, separate proceedings giving rise to a real risk of overlapping issues, and then a balancing of factors such as those in BNP Paribas Wealth Management v Jacob Agam and another [2017] 3 SLR 27. The court did not decide whether Da Hui needed permission under s 133 of the IRDA to sue. Da Hui's new claim to be subrogated to BofA's rights rested on the same premise the High Court had rejected in OA 418, holding that there was no proprietary interest left to which Da Hui could be subrogated. Although the appeal failed on procedural grounds, the Court of Appeal left that decision standing, and Da Hui's counsel accepted the claims were fundamentally similar. There was therefore no real risk of overlap.

The court rejected Da Hui's reading of the Court of Appeal's remarks. Read in full, they pointed out what Da Hui should have done earlier, not what it should now do, and were more a criticism of its conduct than a sanction for the new actions.

On the balance of prejudice, any harm to Da Hui from the proceeds being paid out was self-inflicted. It had already obtained one adjournment to pursue OA 418, and its estimate that the new actions would take months was speculative. Da Hui had already chosen whom and how to sue and had no right to choose again. PetroChina and SocGen had intervened promptly, their applications came first and were far more advanced, and it would be grossly unfair to make them wait longer for the fruits of their judgments.

From the judgment