Teras Lyza Pte. Ltd. & 2 Ors v Argoglobal Underwriting Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. & 4 Ors

[2025] SGHC 82 High Court (General Division) 30 April 2025 • HC/S 814/2021 • 147 min read
37 cases cited (25 SG, 12 foreign) Cited by 3 cases

Catchwords

Insurance — Marine insurance — Duty of fair presentation — Sections 3, 7 UK Insurance Act 2015 Insurance — Marine insurance — Breach of warranties — Sections 10, 11 UK Insurance Act 2015 Insurance — Marine insurance — Whether vessel was a constructive total loss — Clause 6.1.1 Institute Time Clauses (Hulls) 1.10.83 CL 280 Insurance — Marine insurance — Whether loss caused by perils of the seas — Whether vessel was a decrepitude or debility — Clause 6.1.1 Institute Time Clauses (Hulls) 1.10.83 CL 280 Evidence — Admissibility of evidence — Hearsay — Requirement to give notice of reliance on hearsay evidence — Whether prejudice caused by curing non-compliance with notice requirement — Section 32(4)(b) Evidence Act 1893

Practice Areas

Insurance Evidence

Judges (1)

Kwek Mean Luck Delivered

Counsel (15)

Incisive Law LLC Firm WongPartnership LLP Firm Alexis Loy Counsel Plaintiff Chan Leng Sun Counsel Defendant Deya Dubey Counsel Plaintiff Glenn Tennyson Ong Counsel Defendant Jayakumar Suryanarayanan Counsel Plaintiff Jerrick Lim Counsel Plaintiff John Seow Counsel Defendant Loh Wai Yue Counsel Defendant Martin Lee Counsel Defendant Prakash Nair Counsel Defendant Tan Chee Meng Counsel Plaintiff Tan Kai Yun Counsel Plaintiff Teo Jen Min Counsel Plaintiff

Parties (6)

Argoglobal Underwriting Asia Pacific Pte Ltd Defendant China Taiping Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd Defendant Great American Insurance Company Defendant MS First Capital Insurance Limited Defendant Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited Plaintiff QBE Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd Defendant

Case Significance

[2025] SGHC 82 is a High Court (General Division) decision dated 30 April 2025 concerning Evidence and Insurance, specifically addressing marine insurance and admissibility of evidence. The judgment was delivered by Kwek Mean Luck. The case was brought by Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited (plaintiff) against Argoglobal Underwriting Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and others (defendant). Legal representation was provided by WongPartnership LLP and Incisive Law LLC. The judgment cites 37 cases (25 Singapore, 12 foreign) and references 3 statutory provisions, including the Evidence Act, the Insurance Act, and the MPA Act. This decision has been cited by 3 subsequent judgments in the dataset.

Summary

OCBC, as mortgagee and co-assured under a marine insurance policy, claimed US$70 million from insurers for the loss of the vessel TERAS LYZA. The court allowed the claim for US$56 million, finding the vessel was a constructive total loss caused by perils of the seas, while rejecting the insurers' defences of breach of duty of fair presentation and breach of warranties.

What was decided in [2025] SGHC 82?

[2025] SGHC 82 (Teras Lyza Pte. Ltd. & 2 Ors v Argoglobal Underwriting Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. & 4 Ors) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 30 April 2025 addressing Evidence and Insurance, specifically marine insurance and admissibility of evidence. The judgment was delivered by Kwek Mean Luck.

Who were the parties in Teras Lyza Pte. Ltd. & 2 Ors v Argoglobal Underwriting Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. & 4 Ors?

The plaintiff in [2025] SGHC 82 was Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited, and the defendant was Argoglobal Underwriting Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, China Taiping Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd. Legal representation included WongPartnership LLP and Incisive Law LLC. The case was decided on 30 April 2025 in the High Court (General Division).

Which judge decided [2025] SGHC 82?

[2025] SGHC 82 was delivered by Kwek Mean Luck in the High Court (General Division) on 30 April 2025. The case concerned Evidence and Insurance.

What cases and statutes does [2025] SGHC 82 cite?

[2025] SGHC 82 cites 37 prior decisions, including 12 from foreign jurisdictions. It references Evidence Act, Insurance Act, MPA Act. The decision has itself been cited by 3 subsequent judgments.

Statutes Cited

Evidence Act (Cap 97)
s 32(4)(b)
Insurance Act (Cap 142)
MPA Act
s 7

Cases Cited (37)

SG (8)
[2021] SGCA 37 [2022] SGHC(I) 14 [2023] SGHC 12 [2023] SGHCR 19 [2024] SGHC 145 [2024] SGHC 81 [2025] SGCA 11 [2025] SGHC 2
SLR (17)
[1997] 1 SLR(R) 923 [2004] 3 SLR(R) 534 [2006] 3 SLR(R) 769 [2006] 4 SLR(R) 689 [2007] 2 SLR(R) 453 [2009] 1 SLR(R) 844 [2009] 4 SLR(R) 788 [2012] 4 SLR 1206 [2013] 4 SLR 308 [2015] 2 SLR 686 [2018] 3 SLR 687 [2020] 1 SLR 133 [2020] 3 SLR 373 [2020] 3 SLR 825 [2021] 1 SLR 1337 [2021] 3 SLR 215 [2021] 5 SLR 447
UK (12)
[1901] AC 362 [1912] AC 561 [1941] AC 55 [1978] 1 Ch 415 [1985] 1 WLR 948 [2011] UKSC 5 [2013] EWHC 1666 [2013] EWHC 3644 [2017] AC 1 [2019] 4 All ER 885 [2020] EWCA Civ 1645 [2024] 3 WLR 659

Cited By (3)

[2026] SGHC(A) 4
LOW WOON HONG v LIM CHUN YONG (LIN JUNXIONG)
[2025] SGDC 268
De Beaute (SSC) Pte Ltd v Tan Mong Ngoh
[2025] SGHC 108
TIA OON LAI V SALLY TIA SOCK KIU & 2 ORS

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2025] SGHC 82)