Corey Mathew Berard v Tidewater Offshore Operations Pte Ltd

Corey Mathew Berard, a US citizen employed by Delmar Systems Inc as a superintendent for offshore operations, was working on the vessel M/V Pacific Dolphin on or around 11 April 2019 when a sling failed and a tail rope struck him, causing him to fall down an unguarded chain locker. The vessel was owned by Tidewater Offshore Operations Pte Ltd, then called Swire Pacific Offshore Operations (Pte) Ltd, and was on time charter to an ExxonMobil company, MEGI.

On 9 March 2022 his US lawyers sued in a US District Court, naming "Swire Pacific Offshore" and others. Tidewater moved to dismiss on 4 May 2022 under its full legal name, and on 24 March 2023 MEGI disclosed the charter showing Tidewater provided the crew. The US court dismissed the claims against Tidewater on 3 May 2023 for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the remaining US claims were later dismissed. Mr Berard sued Tidewater in Singapore on 11 April 2025 (HC/OC 285/2025). Tidewater applied (HC/SUM 2445/2025) to strike out the claim as time-barred under s 24A of the Limitation Act 1959.

1. Whether Mr Berard had the knowledge needed to sue Tidewater, including its identity and its responsibility for the crew, more than three years before he sued in Singapore
2. Whether constructive knowledge could be imputed because he and his lawyers made no reasonable enquiries
3. Whether commencing the US proceedings stopped time running for the Singapore limitation period
4. Whether a time-barred claim should be struck out

The cause of action accrued in 2019, so Mr Berard relied on the later knowledge date in s 24A(2)(b). Knowledge under s 24A includes what a claimant might reasonably have found out. The court accepted he may not have actually known the charter terms when the US suit began, but held he had constructive knowledge that Tidewater employed the crew. Neither he nor his lawyers asked Delmar, MEGI or Tidewater anything in the roughly three years before suing, though they had Tidewater's Singapore head office address; they chose to wait and fill gaps through US discovery.

On identity, the court found he had actual knowledge of Tidewater's legal name, as the website screenshot his own counsel produced named the head office as Swire Pacific Offshore Operations (Pte) Ltd, so naming "Swire Pacific Offshore" was a misnomer. In any event he had constructive knowledge: the news article, litigation search and branded documents he relied on were not reasonable bases, and basic searches, including of the Singapore Registry of Ships, were not done. US practice of naming defendants loosely did not excuse skipping basic checks.

On the US suit, the court held that "action" in the Limitation Act, read with the Interpretation Act's definition of court and the express arbitration provisions, means proceedings in Singapore, not foreign proceedings. Bringing an action stops time only for that action, consistent with an earlier High Court decision on Canadian proceedings. English cases on the Hague-Visby Rules and the Merchant Shipping Act did not assist.

Since the claim was filed after the three-year period, it was legally unsustainable and liable to be struck out.

The Assistant Registrar allowed Tidewater's application and struck out Mr Berard's claims and the action in OC 285 in their entirety under O 9 r 16(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2021, as disclosing no reasonable cause of action because they were time-barred. No ruling was needed on the other striking out grounds, and costs were to be heard later.