AQUILO SHIPPING INC v SRTT MARINE TRADING & SERVICES PTE LTD

[2026] SGHC 79 High Court (General Division) 10 April 2026 • HC/OA 1376/2025 • 64 min read

53 cases cited (40 SG, 13 foreign)

Catchwords

Arbitration — Interlocutory order or direction — Injunction Contract — Contractual terms — Rules of construction — Indemnities Civil Procedure — Summary determination of question of law — Construction of contract Admiralty and Shipping — Sale of ships — Clause 9 of the Norwegian Saleform 2012 — Construction Injunctions — Mandatory injunction — Interim mandatory injunction compelling seller of ship to furnish security Admiralty and Shipping — Practice and procedure of action in rem — Release — Whether release can be procured by way of an interim mandatory injunction

Practice Areas

Arbitration Contract Civil Procedure Admiralty and Shipping Injunctions

Judges (1)

Sushil Nair Delivered

Counsel (6)

Legal Matrix LLC Firm Oon & Bazul LLP Firm Balakrishnan Chitra Counsel Respondent Bazul Ashhab Counsel Applicant Caleb Tan Counsel Applicant Prakaash s/o Paniar Silvam Counsel Applicant

Parties (2)

Aquilo Shipping Inc Applicant SRTT Marine Trading & Services Pte Ltd Respondent

Case Significance

Aquilo Shipping Inc v SRTT Marine Trading & Services Pte Ltd [2026] SGHC 79 addressed the intersection of international arbitration and admiralty law in the context of a ship sale gone wrong. Sushil Nair J, sitting in the High Court General Division, delivered judgment on 10 April 2026 following hearings on 30 January and 3 March 2026. Aquilo Shipping Inc applied under sections 12(1)(i), 12A(2), and 12A(4) of the International Arbitration Act 1994 for an interim mandatory injunction compelling SRTT Marine Trading & Services Pte Ltd to furnish security of US$3,672,687.10 and S$300,000 to procure the release of the vessel MT "VAYU" (formerly "QIAN TAI 1") from arrest in Singapore admiralty proceedings HC/ADM 64/2023. The court examined the construction of Clause 9 of the Norwegian Saleform 2012, the scope of indemnity obligations arising thereunder, and the separate question of whether an in rem arrest can be lifted by way of an interim mandatory injunction. The citation count of 53 — 40 Singapore and 13 foreign authorities — reflects the depth of legal analysis across admiralty, arbitration, and injunction law.

Summary

Aquilo Shipping Inc applied under the International Arbitration Act 1994 for an interim mandatory injunction compelling SRTT Marine Trading to furnish security of approximately US$3.67 million and S$300,000 to procure the release of the vessel MT Vayu from arrest in Singapore, relying on clause 9 of the Norwegian Saleform 2012 memorandum of agreement. The court considered whether clause 9 imposed a contractual obligation on the seller to furnish security to secure the vessel's release from arrest by a third-party creditor. The application was dismissed, with the court holding that clause 9 imposed no such obligation on the seller and that the balance of convenience favoured refusing the injunction.

What did Aquilo Shipping Inc seek in its High Court application in [2026] SGHC 79?

Aquilo Shipping Inc applied for an interim mandatory injunction to compel SRTT Marine Trading & Services Pte Ltd to furnish security of US$3,672,687.10 and S$300,000 to secure the release of the vessel MT 'VAYU' from admiralty arrest in Singapore proceedings HC/ADM 64/2023, relying on sections 12A(2) and 12A(4) of the International Arbitration Act 1994.

What contractual provision was interpreted in Aquilo Shipping v SRTT Marine [2026] SGHC 79?

Sushil Nair J interpreted Clause 9 of the Norwegian Saleform 2012, a standard ship sale contract, to determine the scope of the seller's indemnity obligations. The court also decided whether an admiralty arrest could be lifted by an interim mandatory injunction granted under the International Arbitration Act pending resolution of the underlying dispute in arbitration.

Statutes Cited

Arbitration Act (Cap 10)

International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A)

s 12A(4)

Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322)

Cases Cited (53)

SG (6)

[2017] SGHC 22 [2020] SGHCR 8 [2021] SGHC 292 [2022] SGHC 248 [2024] SGHC 174 [2026] SGHC 3

SLR (34)

[1991] 2 SLR(R) 427 [1992] 2 SLR(R) 1 [1994] 3 SLR(R) 114 [1994] 3 SLR(R) 146 [2000] 1 SLR(R) 786 [2001] 2 SLR(R) 91 [2002] 1 SLR(R) 949 [2003] 1 SLR(R) 471 [2003] 3 SLR(R) 362 [2004] 4 SLR(R) 531 [2004] 4 SLR(R) 801 [2005] 2 SLR(R) 144 [2008] 2 SLR(R) 565 [2008] 3 SLR(R) 1029 [2008] 4 SLR(R) 994 [2011] 2 SLR 1 [2012] 3 SLR 125 [2013] 2 SLR 449 [2014] 2 SLR 1371 [2015] 2 SLR 540 [2015] 5 SLR 679 [2016] 1 SLR 1096 [2016] 1 SLR 1159 [2016] 2 SLR 50 [2017] 1 SLR 219 [2017] 2 SLR 997 [2017] 4 SLR 99 [2018] 1 SLR 108 [2018] 1 SLR 170 [2020] 5 SLR 634 [2022] 2 SLR 1385 [2025] 3 SLR 1315 [2025] 3 SLR 235 [2025] 4 SLR 277

UK (13)

[1911] 2 KB 705 [1916] 2 Ch 476 [1947] AC 414 [1975] AC 396 [1981] 1 All ER 856 [1991] 2 AC 1 [1993] AC 334 [2002] 1 WLR 94 [2009] 1 WLR 1405 [2016] EWHC 466 [2020] EWHC 726 [2021] EWHC 3132 [2026] UKSC 1

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2026] SGHC 79)