UNDERWATER DIVING OPERATORS PTE LTD v DUNDEE MARINE & INDUSTRIAL SERVICES PTE LTD
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 10–16 August 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | District Court |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Navin Anand |
| Charges / claim | Tort, Contract, Evidence— Burden of proof |
| Counsel | Ang & Partners, PDLegal LLC, Amos Julian Sivasupramaniam, Koh Thiam Kwee, Mato Kotwani, Wong Min Hui |
Source: [2026] SGDC 260, District Court, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (6)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
Underwater Diving Operators Pte Ltd v Dundee Marine & Industrial Services Pte Ltd [2026] SGDC 260 is a decision of the District Court by District Judge Navin Anand, dated 11 August 2026. In the early hours of 19 June 2021 the Plaintiff's vessel, the "Crest", sank at the Small Berth of the Defendant's shipyard. The Plaintiff claimed in negligence and breach of contract that the berth was unsafe and salvage was delayed, and in detinue and conversion over equipment the Defendant refused to deliver up. The Defendant counterclaimed for unpaid invoices. The issues included incorporation of the Defendant's standard terms by course of dealing and the burden of proof. The court found the Plaintiff had not proved its claims, held the contractual lien was valid, dismissed the claims and allowed the counterclaim in part for $1,306.40 in berthing fees plus interest at 1.5% per month.
[2026] SGDC 260 explained
UNDERWATER DIVING OPERATORS PTE LTD v DUNDEE MARINE & INDUSTRIAL SERVICES PTE LTD ([2026] SGDC 260) is a Singapore judgment decided by the District Court on 11 August 2026. It is categorised under Tort, Contract, and Evidence— Burden of proof. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2026] SGDC 260 about?
UNDERWATER DIVING OPERATORS PTE LTD v DUNDEE MARINE & INDUSTRIAL SERVICES PTE LTD ([2026] SGDC 260) is a District Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Tort — Detinue”, “Tort — Conversion”, “Contract — Incorporation of terms”, and “Tort — Negligence — Breach of duty”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2026] SGDC 260 consider?
The judgment refers to Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore Act (Cap 170A), Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore Act, Merchant Shipping (Civil Liability and Compensation for Bunker Oil Pollution) Act (Cap 179A), and Plaintiff of potential liability under the under the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act (Cap 243), among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGDC 260 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2026] SGCA 33. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
Summary
The District Court heard a dispute between Underwater Diving Operators Pte Ltd and Dundee Marine & Industrial Services Pte Ltd, a shipyard operator, after the Plaintiff's vessel, the "Crest", sank at a berth in the Defendant's shipyard on 19 June 2021. The Plaintiff claimed in negligence, breach of contract, detinue and conversion. The court found the berth was not proven unsafe, the salvage was not unreasonable, and the Defendant could assert a contractual lien over the equipment. It dismissed the claims and awarded the Defendant $1,306.40 in berthing fees with interest at 1.5% per month.
What was Underwater Diving Operators v Dundee Marine [2026] SGDC 260 about?
The Plaintiff sued the shipyard operator after its vessel, the "Crest", sank at the shipyard's Small Berth on 19 June 2021, claiming negligence, breach of contract, detinue and conversion. The District Court dismissed the claims and allowed the counterclaim in part.
Why were the detinue and conversion claims dismissed in [2026] SGDC 260?
The court held the Defendant's standard terms, including clause 8 on contractual lien, were incorporated by course of dealing. Because the Plaintiff owed $1,306.40 in berthing fees, the Defendant lawfully detained the equipment, so detinue and conversion failed.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (20)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGDC 260)