The "VAYU" (formerly known as "QIAN TAI 1"

PT Industri Nabati Lestari, an Indonesian commodities trader, began an admiralty action in rem, HC/ADM 64/2023, on 27 July 2023 against the vessel then called "QIAN TAI 1", claiming that a cargo of palm olein shipped to India had been delivered around 5 September 2022 without production of the original bills of lading. It was common ground that on that date OKA Tankers Pte Ltd was the vessel's demise charterer under a 30-month bareboat charter with the owner, Star Dragon Shipping Ltd, and so was the person who would be liable in personam.

The vessel, renamed "VAYU" and owned since January 2025 by Aquilo Shipping Inc, was arrested in Singapore on 19 November 2025. No notice to contest was filed by the defendant, and on 20 March 2026 the claimant obtained default judgment for US$2,759,858.30 plus interest and an order for the vessel's appraisement and sale. Aquilo, given leave to intervene on 11 March 2026, then applied in Summons No 1215 of 2026 to set aside the arrest and the action for want of admiralty jurisdiction. The court stayed the sale and ordered a trial of the jurisdictional facts with cross-examination of witnesses, including OKA's director. Aquilo's case was that OKA's charter had ended by 24 March 2023, when Star Dragon chartered the vessel to Arcis Global Merchants Pte Ltd.

1. Whether the intervener could challenge jurisdiction after default judgment had been entered, without a separate application to set it aside.
2. Whether the Evidence Act 1893 applied to an application in which cross-examination had been ordered, and whether the copy of the Arcis charter was admissible hearsay.
3. Whether OKA was still the demise charterer of the vessel when the action was brought on 27 July 2023, as s 4(4) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act 1961 requires.

The procedural objection failed. If jurisdiction was never properly invoked, the default judgment would be a nullity, and setting it aside follows as a matter of course; O 33 r 21(12) of the Rules of Court 2021 gives an express power to set aside default judgments in rem, so the residual discretion discussed in Rex Lam Paki was not needed. There was no res judicata, since jurisdiction was never actually investigated at the default judgment hearing, where the claimant had named Star Dragon as the liable party. Delay could be met by costs.

On evidence, the court held that where cross-examination is ordered in an application, the Evidence Act applies to the affidavits and oral evidence, rather than splitting them between statutory and common law rules. The copy of the Arcis charter was admissible to prove its existence and, for its contents, under the hearsay exception for a witness outside Singapore whose attendance could not practicably be secured, as Arcis's director had surrendered his passport in India. But the court gave it little weight because its source was unclear.

On the merits, a demise charter ends only when possession and control actually pass back, not on contractual termination alone. The burden lay on the claimant. A settlement agreement drafted by solicitors, which made the Arcis charter a precondition, two later sale agreements referring to it, and OKA's director's evidence showed that the Arcis charter existed from 24 March 2023. The claimant then had to show OKA nevertheless kept possession and control. OKA's help in coordinating and funding repairs at Arcis's request, the Calcutta arrest judgment, and links between OKA and the later buyer did not show this; the claim that OKA profited from the sale was conjecture. Jurisdiction under s 4(4) was therefore not properly invoked.

The High Court allowed the intervener's application. It set aside the default judgment, the originating claim in rem, the warrant of arrest and the order for appraisement and sale, and ordered the vessel released from arrest. Costs were to be heard separately.