Deutz Far East (Pte) Ltd v Pacific Navigation Co Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chua F A J
• Judgment Date: 06 October 1989
• Neutral Citation: [1989] SGHC 88
• Docket Number: Suit No 2859 of 1981
• Date: 06 October 1989
• Year: 1989
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tan Wee Kian (WK Tan & Co)
• Citation: [1989] SGHC 88
• Defendant Counsel: S Gunaseelan (S Gunaseelan)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Sale of defective goods,Duty of care,Equipment for engine of ship,Fitness for purpose,Consumer protection,Commercial Transactions,Negligence,ss 14(2) & 14 (3) Sale of Goods Act 1979 [UK],Sale of goods,Merchantable quality,Duty of manufacturer to take reasonable care in design and manufacture,Tort

Cur Adv Vult

The plaintiffs are the manufacturers and suppliers of Deutz marine engines and spare parts. Their claim against the defendants is for the sum of $42,953.60 being the price of a new top part of the injector pump (NTP) supplied by the plaintiffs to be used on the main engine of the defendants` motor vessel United Glory.

The defendants maintain that on or about 8 August 1980, the NTP was properly fitted onto the main engine of the United Glory at Newcastle, Australia, by the ship`s chief engineer and thereafter the vessel set out to sea but unknown to them the NTP was defective in that it had therein four oversized springs. On or about 14 August 1980, on the voyage from Newcastle, Australia, to Lae in Papua New Guinea, due to the oversized springs in the NTP, the main engine was extensively damaged and the vessel was crippled and placed in a position of peril. The repairs. After the temporary repairs, the vessel left for Gladstone, Australia, where permanent repairs were effected. The defendants were put to considerable loss and expense and they claim damages against the plaintiffs.

At the outset of the trial, the parties agreed to have the issue of liability in the counterclaim of the defendants to be tried first. The main issue is whether the consequential loss suffered by the defendants could be attributed to the supply of `oversized springs` in the NTP supplied by the plaintiffs which the defendants alleged are defective and not fit for the purpose.

The short facts are these. The vessel United Glory was built in 1955 and fitted with a Deutz eight-cylinder diesel main engine. The defendants purchased the United Glory in 1973. The main engine`s fuel pump consisted of two injector pumps, each of which supplied four cylinders. The first pump was driven by the main engine and it, in turn, drove the second pump to which it was coupled at one end. The top part of each injector pump carried a combination of short springs (72mm) and long retainer nuts (32mm). The injector pump in question in these proceedings is the second pump. Between December 1979 to November 1980 the master of the United Glory was Capt Willy Fabricius and the chief engineer was Radar B Karlsen (DW7).

As the second fuel injector pump`s top unit was wearing out, the defendants on 24 July 1980, by telex requested the plaintiffs to supply the United Glory a new top unit identified and described in the catalogue for Deutz spare parts as Part No 01117-606. The plaintiffs on or about 8 August 1980, supplied the NTP to the United Glory.

The evidence adduced by the defendants is shortly this. When the chief engineer received the NTP at Newcastle, the unit came assembled and ready to be fitted on to the lower part of the second pump. The existing top part was taken off and replaced with the NTP. The chief engineer had no problem fitting the NTP. After that the main engine was tested. It was working properly.

On 9 August 1980, after the repairs had been completed, the chief engineer got the engine ready for the voyage to Lae. The vessel was tested alongside the wharf. The vessel left Newcastle at about noon on 9 August 1980. On the first day everything was normal. On 14 August 1980, at around 0200 hours, the vessel`s main engine began to fail: the engine speed had dropped down by about 50 revs, ie about one-third and also the exhaust temperature had risen.

The engine was stopped and an investigation was carried out. It was found that:

(a) the adjustment ring in the coupling in front of the first pump, which drove the camshaft that operated both the first and the second pumps, was broken; and

(b) the groove for the key on the camshaft had widened from its original size of 8mm to 14mm. The key itself was damaged.

On the same day, the master informed the defendants of the breakdown and the underwriters were informed. Emergency repairs were carried out. The adjustment ring was replaced and a new key was made. The engine was started at 1930 hours on 16 August 1980 and the voyage continued.

At 0730 hours on 17 August 1980, the engine speed started to drop again. The main engine was stopped and an investigation carried out. It was the recurrence of the same problem with the same coupling giving way. Temporary repairs were carried out. They were able to get the engine started. Sometimes it was for a few hours, sometimes for a few minutes. During this time, on 18 August 1980, the chief engineer decided to search the whole system when the coupling continued to give way.

Upon opening the first and second pumps, the chief engineer noticed that the springs in the NTP were longer and thicker than the springs in the corresponding top unit of the first pump. The long springs in the NTP were 102mm long, 4.8mm in diameter and 10 turns (coils) whilst the short springs of the first pump were 72mm long, 4mm in diameter and 73/4 turns. Both sets of springs had the same serial number `0117-762`.

The chief engineer reported this to the master. As the chief engineer was uncertain as to which of the two sets of springs were of the correct size, the master contacted Bernt Forsell (DW3), the defendants` managing director. Forsell was asked to confirm with the plaintiffs the correct size of the springs bearing the serial number `0117-762`. When Forsell telephoned the plaintiffs` spare parts department to verify, he was informed that the springs` correct size was 72mm, of 4mm diameter and 7 3/4 turns. The master was accordingly informed on 19 August 1980.

The chief engineer carried out further repairs. This continued until 28 August 1980, when the main engine could not be restarted any more. The master then called for assistance and the vessel was towed into Lae on 30 August 1980. On 8 September 1980, Ronald Arthur Rannard (DW1), a consultant engineer, surveyor from the London Salvage Association, boarded the United Glory at Lae, to ascertain the cause, nature and extent of the damage suffered by the vessel.

When the pumps were opened up in Rannard`s presence, it was noted that the camshaft of the second pump had sheared at the drive coupling between the first and the second pumps. On stripping down the second pump it was found that the NTP had springs that were 30mm longer than the springs in the corresponding unit of the first pump and that they were made of a heavier and thicker material than those in the first pump`s top unit, although all the retainer nuts were of the same length. In other words, whilst the top unit of the first pump had 72mm springs with 32mm retainer nuts, the NTP had 102mm springs with retainer nuts also of 32mm.

Rannard ascertained the exact measurement of the lift or movement of the pump. He found that the springs in the top unit of the first pump compressed to 47mm, while the springs in the NTP of the second pump when fully compressed had an overall length of 48mm, ie the springs became solid cylinders. This meant that there was insufficient free space in the cylinders of the NTP for the springs to compress fully without becoming solid cylinders and exerting pressure on the cam of the camshaft (see exh D13).

Rannard then advised that the long springs in the NTP be cut to reduce their length to 72mm as a temporary repair so that the vessel could proceed to the next loading port of Gladstone in Australia. The defendants were consulted and they agreed. The springs from the NTP were cut by Rannard and the chief engineer to 72mm and later taken ashore to an engineering firm to have the cut ends ground as flat as possible. The cut springs, however, were not used at all because they were made of a thicker material. That would affect the tension of the springs. More power would be needed to compress the new thicker springs even if they were cut down to 72mm. The chief engineer had found an old fuel injector pump top unit in the ship`s stores and installed the four old springs of 72mm into the NTP.

After undergoing the necessary repairs and tests at Lae the vessel departed for Gladstone on 13 September 1980.

After leaving Lae for Gladstone, everything was working as normal with the main engine. On 15 September 1980 the chief engineer stopped the main engine to inspect the fuel injector pumps and found them in good order and functioning normally. The pumps were not dismantled for detailed examination.

On 18 September 1980, however, the chief engineer found that the lower part of the second injector pump was hotter than normal. The main engine was stopped for investigation. He found the shaft for the roller follower broken; the bush bearing holder broken and another bush bearing holder cracked. The broken shaft was replaced as there was a spare on board the vessel. Nothing could be done as regards the bush bearing holders; they were part of the body of the pump itself and could not be repaired. Cylinders 6 and 7 of the second pump were immobilized. The vessel continued the voyage at reduced speed as only six cylinders were operating. The vessel managed to reach Gladstone on 19 September 1980.

Rannard was again instructed by the London Salvage Association to proceed to Gladstone and examine further the second pump. He reported:

An examination of the damaged pump revealed that the roller follower shaft had broken between the second and third roller aft. This failure has caused the vessel to be minus No 6 and No 7 cylinders and the vessel had proceeded into port with the assistance of tugs on Nos 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 cylinders with 5 and 8 cylinders being below power.

Rannard reported other damages sustained:

(1) Fuel pump cam shaft damaged beyond repair.

(2) Set collars broken between No 1 and 2 pumps.

(3) Two rollers indented.

(4) Bearings for shaft heavily worn.

(5) Two left bodies broken.

The second pump was stripped down and spare parts were ordered for the pump from the plaintiffs. The pump was repaired. On 4 October 1980, the engine was tested in the presence of the Bureau Veritas surveyor. It was working...