National Jaya (Pte) Ltd v Hong Tat Marine Shipping Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Wee Chong Jin CJ
• Judgment Date: 09 November 1978
• Neutral Citation: [1978] SGHC 60
• Citation: [1978] SGHC 60
• Defendant Counsel: S Selvadurai (Selvadurai & Emmanuel)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: G Pannirselvam (Drew & Napier)
• Date: 09 November 1978
• Docket Number: Suit No 4351 of 1975
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Carriage of goods by sea,Admiralty and Shipping,Hague Rules,Whether Hague Rules Applied,Carriage of Goods by Sea Act,Whether limitation of liability applied

Cur Adv Vult

National Jaya (Pte) Ltd the plaintiffs, had seven cases of marble slabs and three cases of glass mosaic worth $28,768 to send to Pertamina of Jakarta, Indonesia. Hong Tat Marine Shipping Pte Ltd the defendants, agreed to ship them on their vessel Hai Sing from Singapore to Merak, a port near Jakarta and issued a Bill of Lading for these goods. The value of the goods was not declared by the plaintiffs before shipment and not inserted in the bill of lading.

The Hai Sing was a barge which had no moveable rudder and had no steering power of its own. It was being towed by another vessel belonging to the defendants. It`s deadweight was 785.6 long tons or approximately 800 metric tons but it was in fact carrying 966 metric tons of cargo on the voyage to Merak. On approaching Merak, the tug decided to anchor for the night to await clearance the next day and proceeded to shorten the tow line. During this operation the barge overran the tow line which became entangled necessitating cutting the tow line. The barge`s rear anchor was dropped but because of strong wind, and waves the anchor snapped and the barge was grounded. Water entered and flooded two hatches resulting in a total loss of the plaintiffs` goods. They claimed against the defendants for their loss.

The only issue to be decided is whether or not, on the above facts which are not in dispute, art IV r 5 of the Hague Rules as incorporated in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (Cap 184, 1970 Ed) (the Act) applied to limit the liability of the defendants. Article IV r 5 reads as follows:

Neither the carrier nor the ship shall in any event be or become liable for any loss or damage to or in connection with goods in an amount exceeding £l00 per package or unit, or the equivalent of that sum in other currency, unless the nature and value of such goods have been declared by the shipper before shipment and inserted in the bill of lading.

It is conceded that the defendants were in breach of art III r 1 which reads, as follows:

The carrier shall be bound, before and at the beginning of the voyage, to exercise due diligence to -

(a) make the ship seaworthy;

(b) properly man, equip and supply the ship;

(c) make the holds, refrigerating and cool chambers and all other parts of the ship in which goods are carried, fit and safe for their reception, carriage and preservation.

It is also conceded that the non-fulfilment of art III r 1 caused the loss of the plaintiffs` goods.

The plaintiffs contend that before the carrier can rely...