Lim Peh Mueh and Others v Kea Shipping Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Goh Joon Seng J
• Judgment Date: 19 November 1999
• Neutral Citation: [1999] SGHC 301
• Docket Number: Admiralty in Personam No 369 of 1998
• Date: 19 November 1999
• Year: 1999
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Randhir Ram Chandra (Haridass Ho & Partners)
• Citation: [1999] SGHC 301
• Defendant Counsel: S Mohan (Gurbani & Co),SH Almenoar (Tan Rajah & Cheah)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Admiralty and Shipping,ss 8 & 9 Maritime Conventions Act of 1911,Whether action time-barred by virtue of Maritime Conventions Act,Claim against vessel owners for damages for loss of life,Time bars,Limitation of liabilities,Limitation,Claim against vessel owners for loss of life -Whether action time-barred,Civil Procedure,Relationship of Imperial statute with Civil Law Act,Applicability,English Law,Applicability of Imperial statute,Application of English Law Act (Cap 7A, 1994 Ed)

: RA 165/99 is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the order of the assistant registrar made in SIC 449/99 striking out this action on the application of the defendants. RA 166/99 is also an appeal by the plaintiffs and is against the order of the assistant registrar made in SIC 1232/99 dismissing their application for an order that they be at liberty to maintain this action notwithstanding that it was not commenced within two years from date of death of the deceased.

The parties

The first and second plaintiffs are the administratrixes of the estate of Lee Liang Teck, deceased. The third plaintiff is the administrator of the estates of Lim Say Koon and Tan Lay Chit, deceased.

The defendants were at the material time the owners of the barge `Tropical 38` and tug `Keasin 11`.

The background

On 5 June 1995, the deceased were on board a fishing vessel Pompong KMR 10 No 9708 (`the fishing vessel`) with eight others. At or about 3.30am while the fishing vessel was anchored in Indonesian waters, Tropical 38 which was being towed by Keasin 11 collided into it. The fishing vessel capsized and the deceased lost their lives either on 5 or 6 June 1995.

On 25 January 1996, the solicitors for the plaintiffs wrote to the defendants holding them liable for their clients` losses and damages caused by the said collision.

On 7 February 1996, the defendants through their solicitors replied, denying liability and advising that if they were liable, their limit of liability under the Merchant Shipping Act for all the claims was approximately $145,000.

On 4 March 1996, the first and second plaintiffs obtained the grant of letters of administration of the estate of Lee Liang Teck, deceased. On 26 February 1996 and 19 August 1996, the third plaintiff obtained the grants of letters of administration of the estate of Lim Say Koon and Tan Lay Chit, deceased, respectively.

On 4 June 1998, this action was commenced.

On being served with the writ on 12 January 1999, the defendants on 18 January 1999, entered an appearance and on 22 January 1999 filed their application in SIC 449/99 for an order that this action be `declared unmaintainable, and be struck out and dismissed`. The ground for the application was that this action, not having been commenced within two years of the date of death of the deceased, was time-barred by virtue of s 8 of the Maritime Conventions Act of 1911 (`Maritime Conventions Act`).

On 24 February 1999, the plaintiffs applied in SIC 1232/99 for liberty to maintain this action. The plaintiffs` position was that this action was commenced under s 12 of the Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1994 Ed) which by s 12(5) provides for a limitation period of three years. Hence, this action was not time-barred. In the alternative, the plaintiffs applied for extension of time to maintain this action.

Both applications came up for hearing before the assistant registrar on 7 April 1999. The assistant registrar granted the order applied for by the defendants and dismissed the plaintiffs` application. The defendants were awarded costs for this action and for both applications fixed at $4,000.

The plaintiffs appealed against the orders of the assistant registrar. When the appeals came before me for hearing on 2 September 1999, the third plaintiff`s claims had been settled and his appeals were withdrawn. The first and second plaintiffs proceeded with the appeals on behalf of the estate of Lee Liang Teck, deceased. I dismissed the appeals. They have appealed to the Court of Appeal. I now give my reasons. [The appeal was withdrawn - Ed.]

My reasons

That the Maritime Conventions Act applies in Singapore was not in dispute. What was at issue before me was whether s 8 of the Maritime Conventions Act, which provides for a limitation period of two years for claims under it, is `inconsistent` with s 12(5) read with ss 12(1) and (2) of the Civil Law Act under which the dependants of a deceased may bring an action for damages arising as a result of the death of the deceased within three years therefrom. If there is any inconsistency between them, the provisions of s 12(5) of the Civil Law Act shall prevail by virtue of s 4(3) of the Application of English Law Act (Cap 7A, 1994 Ed).

The Maritime Conventions Act is an imperial statute. It came into force on 16 December 1911 and, pursuant to s 9 thereof, on 1 February 1913 was extended to the Straits Settlements as part of His Majesty`s dominions. By s 4(1) of the Application of English Law Act, subject to the provisions of that section, the Maritime Conventions Act continues to apply being one of the `English enactments` as defined in s 2 and specified in the First Schedule to s 4(1).

By s 4(3) of the Application of English Law Act, `[t]o the extent to which any of the provisions of any English enactment is inconsistent with the provisions of any local Act in force at or after 12th November 1993, the provisions of the local Act shall prevail.` The Civil Law Act is a `local Act`. See the definition in s 2 of the Application of English Law Act.

Section 8 of the Maritime Conventions Act reads:

Limitation of actions

No action shall be maintainable to enforce any claim or lien against a vessel or her owners in respect of any damage or loss to another vessel, her cargo or freight, or any property on board her, or damages for loss of life or personal injuries suffered by any person on board her, caused by the fault of the former vessel, whether such vessel be wholly or partly in fault, or in respect of any salvage services, unless proceedings therein are commenced within two years from the date when the damage or loss or injury was caused or the salvage services were rendered, and an action shall not be maintainable under this Act to enforce any contribution in respect of an overpaid proportion of any damages for loss of life or personal injuries unless proceedings therein are commenced within one year from the date of payment:

Provided that any court having jurisdiction to deal with an action to which this section relates may, in accordance with the rules of court, extend any such period, to such extent and on such conditions as it thinks fit, and shall, if satisfied that there has not during such period been any reasonable opportunity of arresting the defendant vessel within the jurisdiction of the court, or within the territorial waters of the country to which the plaintiff`s ship belongs or in which the plaintiff resides or has his principal place of business, extend any such period to an extent sufficient to give such reasonable opportunity.

Sections 12(1), (2) and (5) of the Civil Law Act read:

12 (1) If death is caused by any wrongful act, neglect or default which is such as would (if death has not ensued) have entitled the person injured to

...