The "VAYU" (formerly known as "QIAN TAI 1"
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 28 September–4 October 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | S Mohan |
| Charges / claim | Civil Procedure, Evidence, Admiralty and Shipping |
| Counsel | DennisMathiew, Legal Matrix LLC, Oon & Bazul LLC, Caleb Tan Jia Chween, Chitra Balakrishnan, Mathiew Christophe Rajoo, Ng Jin Wei, Ng Jun Jie Justin, Prakaash s/o Paniar Silvam, Tan Hui Tsing |
Source: [2026] SGHC 204, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (10)
Parties (3)
Case Significance
The "VAYU" (formerly known as "QIAN TAI 1") [2026] SGHC 204 was decided by S Mohan J in the General Division of the High Court on 30 September 2026. The Claimant, PT Industri Nabati Lestari, issued an action in rem on 27 July 2023 for alleged misdelivery of palm olein without production of the original bills of lading, arrested the Vessel on 19 November 2025 and obtained default judgment for US$2,759,858.30. The Intervener, Aquilo Shipping Inc, applied in HC/SUM 1215/2026 to set aside the action. The issues were whether the application was procedurally barred and whether s 4(4) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act 1961 was satisfied. The court held the jurisdiction was improperly invoked and set aside the default judgment, claim, arrest warrant and sale order.
[2026] SGHC 204 explained
The "VAYU" (formerly known as "QIAN TAI 1" ([2026] SGHC 204) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 30 September 2026. It is categorised under Civil Procedure, Evidence, and Admiralty and Shipping. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2026] SGHC 204 about?
The "VAYU" (formerly known as "QIAN TAI 1" ([2026] SGHC 204) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Judgments and orders — Setting aside”, “Evidence — Admissibility of evidence — Hearsay — Exceptions”, “Admiralty and Shipping — Admiralty jurisdiction and arrest — Action in rem”, and “Evidence — Admissibility of evidence — Applicability of the Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed) to applications in an action involving oral evidence”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2026] SGHC 204 consider?
The judgment refers to Evidence Act (Cap 97) and Evidence Act is therefore to disapply the entirety of Part II of the Evidence Act (Cap 97). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGHC 204 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2026] SGHC 128, [2025] SGHC 217, and [2023] SGHC 260. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
The General Division of the High Court heard an application by Aquilo Shipping Inc, the current owner of the vessel "VAYU" (formerly "QIAN TAI 1"), to set aside an in rem action by PT Industri Nabati Lestari over alleged misdelivery of palm olein. The court held the intervener could challenge jurisdiction despite the default judgment for US$2,759,858.30, but found the claimant had not proved the demise charterer remained so when the action was filed on 27 July 2023. It set aside the default judgment, the claim, the warrant of arrest and the order for sale.
Why was the arrest of the VAYU set aside in [2026] SGHC 204?
The court found the Claimant failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that OKA remained the demise charterer of the Vessel when ADM 64 was brought on 27 July 2023, so admiralty jurisdiction under s 4(4) was improperly invoked.
Could the intervener challenge jurisdiction after default judgment in the VAYU case ([2026] SGHC 204)?
Yes. The court held the absence of a separate prayer to set aside default judgment JUD 123 was not fatal to SUM 1215, since setting aside the judgment was a necessary consequence of the jurisdiction ruling.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (30)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGHC 204)