Hailisen Shipping Co Ltd v Pan-United Shipyard Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chao Hick Tin JA
• Judgment Date: 06 November 2003
• Neutral Citation: [2003] SGCA 46
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 70 of 2003
• Date: 06 November 2003
• Year: 2003
• Published date: 17 December 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Michael Lai Kai Jin and Ms Wendy Tan (Haq and Selvam)
• Citation: [2003] SGCA 46
• Defendant Counsel: Jude P Benny and Gerald Yee (Joseph Tan Jude Benny)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Civil Procedure,Whether leave to appeal to Court of Appeal required,Section 34(2)(a) Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed),Appeals,Leave

Delivered by Chao Hick Tin JA

1 This motion that came before us raised once again the question as to the proper interpretation of 34(2)(a) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322) (“SCJA”) in a setting which is different from those dealt with in previous cases.

2 The applicant, Hailisen Shipping Co Ltd (“Hailisen”), sought to have an appeal to the Court of Appeal, lodged by Pan United Shipyard (PUS), struck out on the ground that the latter did not obtain the required leave of court before filing the notice of appeal. We heard the motion and dismissed it, and allowed the appeal to proceed. We now give our reasons.

The background

3 In October 1999, PUS contracted with Castle Shipping Company (“Castle”) to repair and supply equipment to the vessel “DILMUN FULMAR” (the vessel). The job was done. The total bill came to $770,822.28. As Castle failed to pay the bill, on 12 August 2001, PUS caused the vessel to be arrested. Pursuant to negotiations, a Settlement Agreement was reached on 14 August 2001 where it was agreed that Castle would pay PUS $310,000 in three instalments in full and final settlement of the debt. It was also agreed that this settlement was without prejudice to PUS’ right to re-arrest the vessel should Castle default on any of the instalments. Following the payment of the first instalment of $140,000, the vessel was released. The second and third instalments of $85,000 each were to be paid on 14 September and 14 October 2001 respectively.

4 Shortly after the first instalment was paid, on 21 September 2001, the vessel was sold by Castle to Hailisen. The name of the vessel was changed to “HAILISEN”. Castle did not make any further instalment payment after the sale. As a result, PUS commenced an admiralty in rem action against Castle claiming for the balance sum of $170,000. On 29 July 2002, a warrant of arrest was also issued against the vessel.

5 Following the arrest, the new owner, Hailisen, furnished security in the sum of $260,000. On 10 August 2002, the vessel was released from arrest. Having obtained leave of court to intervene in the in rem action, Hailisen applied to set aside the warrant of arrest on the ground that the breach of the Settlement Agreement did not give rise to an in rem right against the vessel. On 7 April 2003, the Assistant Registrar set aside the warrant of arrest but did not grant Hailisen’s prayer for damages for wrongful arrest.

6 Both PUS and Hailisen appealed against the Assistant Registrar’s order – the former against the Assistant Registrar’s decision to set aside the warrant of arrest and the latter for dismissing their prayer for damages for wrongful arrest.

7 Belinda Ang J dismissed PUS’ appeal and affirmed the decision below setting aside the warrant of arrest. In addition, she allowed Hailisen’s appeal and ordered that Hailisen was entitled to damages for wrongful arrest which should be assessed.

8 PUS appealed against the whole decision of Ang J, which effectively has two parts:-

(i) that the warrant of arrest be set aside;

(ii) that the arrest was wrongful and for which PUS was to pay damages to Hailisen to be assessed.

9 By the...