Owner and/or Demise Charterer of the vessel A SYMPHONY (IMO No. 9249324) v Owner and/or Demise Charterer of the vessel SEA JUSTICE (IMO No. 9309514)

On 27 April 2021 the vessels A SYMPHONY and SEA JUSTICE collided off Qingdao in the People's Republic of China, badly damaging the A SYMPHONY and causing a significant oil pollution incident. The next day the owner of the A SYMPHONY (the plaintiff) filed Admiralty in Rem No 61 of 2021 in Singapore against the owner of the SEA JUSTICE (the defendant). Proceedings also began in Qingdao: the defendant constituted a limitation fund in the Qingdao Maritime Court, approved on 12 July 2021, and filed an inter-ship claim on liability; the plaintiff registered its claims against that fund, the plaintiff's P&I club set up a separate oil pollution limitation fund, and the plaintiff filed its own inter-ship claim, filed evidence, made oral submissions at a hearing on 19 April 2022 and jointly confirmed the authenticity of evidence. The Qingdao court refused the defendant's application for a worldwide order restraining the plaintiff from suing elsewhere.

On 19 October 2022 the plaintiff obtained a warrant of arrest in Singapore, and the SEA JUSTICE was arrested the next day and released against security of a letter of undertaking and a payment into court. In Summons No 4434 of 2022 the defendant sought a stay on the ground of forum non conveniens, the setting aside of the warrant for material non-disclosure, and the return of the security. The plaintiff said its claim was about US$ 112.3m while the Chinese limitation fund was just over US$ 6.1m.

1. Whether the Qingdao court was clearly or distinctly the more appropriate forum under the Spiliada test
2. Whether the warrant of arrest should be set aside for material non-disclosure
3. Whether the security should be returned to the defendant or a conditional or case management stay ordered instead

The collision occurred in Chinese territorial waters, making the PRC the natural forum and Chinese law the governing law; the plaintiff offered nothing to show that liability and damages, including for oil pollution, would be assessed the same way in Singapore. Evidence from the Chinese authorities that investigated and responded to the collision was best available in the PRC. Both parties were actively litigating liability in Qingdao, which was more advanced, so parallel proceedings risked inconsistent judgments contrary to comity. The Qingdao court's refusal of a restraining order did not encourage suits elsewhere, and Hong Kong decisions allowing parallel actions were distinguishable. The court made no finding on whether the plaintiff had submitted to the Qingdao court's jurisdiction, as both experts' opinions had flaws. The only link to Singapore was the arrest.

At the second stage, losing security pegged to Singapore's higher limitation regime was no different from losing a higher limit of liability, which The "Reecon Wolf" [2012] 2 SLR 289 held is not a juridical advantage. A shipowner's choice of limitation forum cannot be pre-empted by a claimant.

The plaintiff had not disclosed the full extent of its participation in Qingdao, and its translation wrongly added words reserving jurisdiction. But as the plaintiff could still challenge jurisdiction there and had disclosed the refused restraining order, the court exercised its discretion, on proportionality, not to set aside the warrant.

With the stay granted there was no basis to keep the security, and a conditional stay would leave the plaintiff doubly secured, contrary to comity.

The Assistant Registrar allowed the defendant's application in part. It ordered an unconditional stay of the Singapore proceedings in favour of the Qingdao proceedings and ordered the return of both the S$ 8,846,383 paid into court and the letter of undertaking, but dismissed the application to set aside the warrant of arrest.