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

[2025] SGHC 183 High Court (General Division) 15 September 2025 • HC/ADM 92/2021 ( HC/SUM 2337/2025 ) |HC/ADM 94/2021 ( HC/SUM 2338/2025 ) • 22 min read
6 cases cited

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Stay of proceedings

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure

Judges (1)

Kwek Mean Luck Delivered

Counsel (13)

DennisMathiew Firm Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC Firm Resource Law LLC Firm Choi Yee Hang Ian Counsel Intervener Jonathan Lim Shi Cao Counsel Intervener Kelley Wong Kar Ee Counsel Intervener Mathiew Christophe Rajoo Counsel Intervener Ng Jin Wei Counsel Intervener Ng Jun Jie Justin Counsel Intervener Probin Stephan Dass Counsel Intervener Tan Hui Tsing Counsel Intervener Tan Poh Ling Wendy Counsel Intervener Xu Hongli Terry Counsel Intervener

Parties (6)

Bank of America, N.A., Singapore Branch Plaintiff Da Hui Shipping (Pte) Ltd (in creditor's voluntary liquidation) Intervener Owner of the vessel "Ocean Goby" Defendant Owner of the vessel "Ocean Jack" Defendant PetroChina International (Singapore) Pte Ltd Intervener Societe Generale, Singapore Branch Intervener

Case Significance

[2025] SGHC 183 is a High Court (General Division) decision dated 15 September 2025 concerning Civil Procedure, specifically addressing stay of proceedings. The judgment was delivered by Kwek Mean Luck. The case was brought by Bank of America, N.A., Singapore Branch (plaintiff) against Owner of the vessel "Ocean Goby" and others (defendant). The judgment cites 6 cases and references 2 statutory provisions, including the Insolvency Restructuring and Dissolution Act and the Restructuring and Dissolution Act.

Summary

Da Hui Shipping sought to stay payment-out applications by PetroChina and Societe Generale from the sale proceeds of judicially sold vessels, pending newly commenced admiralty actions. The court dismissed the stay applications, finding no real risk of overlapping issues between the payment-out and the new admiralty proceedings, and noting it would be grossly unfair to deny the interveners finality after they had waited over two years.

What was decided in [2025] SGHC 183?

[2025] SGHC 183 (BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., SINGAPORE BRANCH v Owner of the vessel(s) OCEAN GOBY (IMO No. 9812406)) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 15 September 2025 addressing Civil Procedure, specifically stay of proceedings. The judgment was delivered by Kwek Mean Luck.

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

The plaintiff in [2025] SGHC 183 was Bank of America, N.A., Singapore Branch, and the defendant was Owner of the vessel "Ocean Goby", Owner of the vessel "Ocean Jack". Legal representation included DennisMathiew and Morgan Lewis Stamford LLC. The case was decided on 15 September 2025 in the High Court (General Division).

Which judge decided [2025] SGHC 183?

[2025] SGHC 183 was delivered by Kwek Mean Luck in the High Court (General Division) on 15 September 2025. The case concerned Civil Procedure.

What cases and statutes does [2025] SGHC 183 cite?

[2025] SGHC 183 cites 6 prior decisions. It references Insolvency Restructuring and Dissolution Act, Restructuring and Dissolution Act.

Statutes Cited

Insolvency Restructuring and Dissolution Act
s 133(1)
Restructuring and Dissolution Act

Cases Cited (6)

SLR (6)
[2016] 1 SLR 373 [2017] 3 SLR 27 [2019] 2 SLR 682 [2025] 1 SLR 849 [2025] 1 SLR 998 [2025] 4 SLR 816

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2025] SGHC 183)