Maersk Tankers Mr K/S v Owner and/or Demise Charterer of the vessel SWIFT WINCHESTER (IMO No. 9470909)

Maersk Tankers MR K/S, the claimant, was the commercial manager and time-charterer under the Maersk Tankers Pool Agreement. Winchester Shipping Inc, the defendant and then owner of the vessel SWIFT WINCHESTER, joined that agreement by an accession letter dated 30 March 2022. The agreement contained an indemnity clause, which in the claimant's view required the defendant to indemnify it against claims and legal costs arising from performance of the agreement, and an arbitration clause referring disputes to arbitration in London. The claimant sub-chartered the vessel to PMI Trading DAC, which later claimed losses from the claimant over the vessel's detention at Port Arthur, Texas.

Because the defendant had said it intended to sell the vessel, and according to the claimant was a one-ship company, the claimant filed Admiralty in Rem No 83 of 2022 on 2 November 2022 as a protective measure, seeking an indemnity. It also began proceedings in Malaysia, later stayed in favour of arbitration, and in Texas, where substitute security was eventually reduced to US$330,000. The defendant ceased to own the vessel after 19 November 2022. The claimant served the originating claim on the vessel in Singapore on 25 June 2024, and was defending a counterclaim by PMI of US$5,757,500 in an arbitration in New York. On 13 March 2025, in HC/SUM 691/2025, the claimant applied to stay its own action pending a future London arbitration, to keep the action alive in case it needed further security. The defendant did not file any notice of intention to contest, reply or submissions, and did not attend.

1. Whether a claimant may apply under s 6 of the International Arbitration Act 1994 to stay proceedings it started itself
2. Whether the timing requirements in s 6(1) were met, given that no notice of intention to contest or not contest had been filed
3. Whether the requirements for a stay set out in Tomolugen Holdings Ltd and another v Silica Investors Ltd and other appeals [2016] 1 SLR 373 were met
4. Whether, alternatively, a case management stay should be granted

Section 6(1) allows "any party" to the arbitration agreement to apply, and does not limit this to defendants. Obiter remarks in The "ICL Raja Mahendra" [1998] 2 SLR(R) 922 that either party may apply supported this. There could be good reasons for a claimant to seek a stay rather than discontinue, as here, where a fresh in rem action was impossible after the change of ownership.

On timing, the reference to filing a notice of intention to contest or not contest was not read literally. Following Navigator Investment Services Ltd v Acclaim Insurance Brokers Pte Ltd [2010] 1 SLR 25, the question was whether the claim had crystallised, and the endorsement of claim set out its substance. The AR noted that s 6(1) sat uncomfortably with this result and suggested legislative clarification. The claimant had delivered no pleading and had taken no step showing an intention to pursue the merits in court; steps to obtain security did not count, as s 7(1)(a) of the IAA contemplates a stay after property has been arrested.

There was a valid arbitration agreement, since the accession letter incorporated the pool agreement's clauses. The dispute over the indemnity clause fell within the arbitration clause, the defendant having apparently failed or refused to indemnify, and nothing suggested the agreement was null, void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.

On the alternative ground, the parties and issues in the court action and the future arbitration would overlap, with risks of inconsistent findings and wasted costs, so a case management stay would have been appropriate. Costs followed the event because the defendant could have consented; the sum was set within the Appendix G range, as the application was not complex and was unopposed.

The Assistant Registrar allowed the application and ordered that ADM 83 be stayed in favour of arbitration under s 6 of the IAA, with liberty to apply. The defendant was ordered to pay the claimant costs of the application fixed at S$12,000 all in. The court added that it would also have granted a case management stay.