Pac-Asian Service Pte Ltd v Westburne International Drilling Ltd

JurisdictionSingapore
Judgment Date22 August 1982
Date22 August 1982
Docket NumberSuit No 5436 of 1982
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Pac-Asian Service Pte Ltd
Plaintiff
and
Westburne International Drilling Ltd
Defendant

[1982] SGHC 39

A P Rajah J

Suit No 5436 of 1982

High Court

Admiralty and Shipping–Carriage of goods by sea–Voyage charterparties–Agreement to provide tug and barge for towing rig–Barge in damaged and unrepaired condition–Whether barge seaworthy–Contract–Remedies–Contract to provide tug and barge for towing rig–Contract repudiated on basis that barge provided not suitable–Provider of tug and barge accepting repudiation and claiming damages–Whether barge seaworthy–Whether provider of tug and barge ready, willing and able to carry out contract

The defendant was an international drilling company which had need of a barge to transport a rig from Sulawesi to Kalimantan. The plaintiff, which carried on the business of, inter alia, charterers and shipping operators, responded to the defendant's invitation to bid for the removal of the rig. On 28 February 1980, the parties agreed that the plaintiff would provide a tug and barge for the removal of the defendant's rig. On 5 March 1980 the plaintiff informed the defendant that the tug Expert and the barge Orchid XI were ready. However, the defendant's surveyors, the Salvage Association (“SA”), gave an unfavourable report on the suitability of the Orchid XI for the operation as it had earlier suffered contact and grounding damage that remained unrepaired. The defendant telexed the plaintiff on 10 March not to sail the barge and tug.

On the same day the plaintiff informed the defendant that as the tug Expert had arrived late in Singapore with mechanical faults on the main engine, it would replace it with another tug, Maytug 1.The defendant requested the plaintiff to name another barge on 11 March and on 17 March, the defendant discharged the plaintiff from the contract.

The plaintiff accepted the repudiation and reserved its “right to claim reimbursement permits and demurrage”. The plaintiff argued that it was at all material times ready, willing and able to carry out the contract with the Maytug 1 and Orchid XI. The barge Orchid XI had been issued provisional classification certificates by Bureau Veritas, a classification society. The defendant did not allege that the Maytug 1 was unfit for the job undertaken but it contended that the barge Orchid XI was not seaworthy due to its unrepaired and damaged condition and was unfit to carry out the agreed task of transporting the rig.

Held, dismissing the claim:

(1) On the evidence, the barge Orchid XI should not have been issued with a class certificate until it had had full permanent repairs effected to it: at [34].

(2) Because of its damaged and unrepaired condition the barge Orchid XI was unseaworthy to the extent that during the first half of 1980 it was not capable of carrying the rig as agreed between the parties on 28 February 1980. In the circumstances, the plaintiff was not at all material times ready, willing and able to carry out the contract with the defendant: at [34].

J & E Kish v Charles Taylor, Sons & Co [1912] AC 604 (refd)

Kenneth Tan (Drew & Napier) for the plaintiff

Ronnie Quek (Shook Lin & Bok) for the defendant.

A P Rajah J

1 The plaintiffs are a Singapore-registered company carrying on, inter alia, the business of shipowners, charterers and shipping operators.

2 The defendants are an international drilling company and work as drilling contractors for several major oil companies in South-East Asia. At the relevant time, that is in 1979 and 1980, they were drilling for Union Oil and then for British Petroleum (“BP”) in Indonesian waters, more particularly at Sulawesi and Kalimantan, respectively.

3 In February 1980 the defendants had a contract with BP to transport their rig number 205 (“the rig”) from Sulawesi to Kalimantan. They were about to complete their drilling contract for BP at Sulawesi and were desirous of moving the rig on a barge (s) from Sulawesi to Kalimantan to fulfil the said contract with BP and there to drill for Union Oil. 15 March 1980 was the date on which the rig would be free and ready for its contemplated removal.

4 The defendants therefore on 19 February 1980 invited the plaintiffs and some others to bid for the removal of the rig in the following terms (AB1-2):

Transporting by barge (s) our Drilling Rig No 205H from our present operation in S Sulawesi, 10 km up the Gilerang River, to our forthcoming operation in E Kalimantan, Indonesia 300 km up the Barito River.

The Gilerang River can only be entered at high tide at which time a water depth of 1.5 metres occurs on the sand bar at the mouth. A very shallow draft river tug would have to be utilised to bring barge (s) in and out of river.

The Barito River can be navigated readily to a point some 200 Km up stream (Buntok) and from there onward to offloading point some shallows are encountered depending on rainfall in area. A tug of 5' draft would encounter a minimum amount of trouble except that the river flows at 4-5 knots.

The bid will be quoted as a lump sum in US dollars to include the following:

  1. (A) Barge (s) to accommodate approximately 50 tons (1900 cubic meters) of rig and related equipment.

  2. (B) 35-50-ton Crawler crane with minimum 70' to 80' boom located on one of the barges (complete with operator and lashing of crane).

  3. (C) A tug (s) to perform all towing operations aforementioned, inclusive of fuel and all related costs.

  4. (D) Four days lay time at each for loading and off-loading (reversible).

  5. (E) Marking of Gilerang River Channel for safe passage.

Cargo insurance, lashing and lashing survey will be our responsibility.

Barge (s) will be required on site ready for loading on or about 15 March 1980.

5 To this invitation the plaintiffs responded as follows on 26 February 1980 (AB4-5):

We are pleased to quote you on the following basis:

Equipment to be used

  1. 1 Sea-going tug, minimum 730 HP, 2 Screw, capable of navigating Sungei Barito to the Union Staging Area.

  2. 1 Flattop barge of 210' x 63' having deck area of about 11,400 sq ft or I Flattop barge 150' x 50' deck area about 6075 sq ft and 1 flattop barge 120' x 40' deck area about 3675 sq ft (barges fitted side stanchions)

  3. 1 Shallow draft river tug to handle the barge into and out of Sg Gilerang and to assist in upper reach of Sg Barito if required. To be carried on deck of barge and lifted off/on by crane, below.

  4. 1 Crane P&H 335 or Koehring 1000. Minimum 35T. Boom 70/80 feet. Block rigged for maximum lift at fitted boom length.

NB The sea-going tug will have bunker/water capacity sufficient to sail Singapore/off Bonge/Banjar Masin without replenishment.

Personnel to be provided:

All tug crews.

Crane driver for operation at Sg Gilerang and Sg Barito staging areas.

Supervision as required.

Remarking of Sg Gilerang channel as required. Including cost of required Indonesian permits to snow operation of the vessels.

Transport and messing of crane driver and our supervisor from Singapore to and on site to be provided by Wesburne. Lump sum US$157,920

Demurrage per day US$2,400.

The above price includes the following laydays:

Off Sg Gilerang, after complete load lash and tow out, waiting forclearance of cargo

1 day

At Banjar Masin, clear inwards cargo

2 days

At Banjar Masin, clear outwards empty

1 day

At Bonge Staging Area to load cargo

4 days

  1. At Union Staging Area to discharge cargo 4 days

We confirm that we have enquired into the tide range at Sg Gilerang...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Gay Choon Ing v Loh Sze Ti Terence Peter
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • January 8, 2009
    ...Ltd v Ong Hoo Eng [2009] 1 SLR (R) 305; [2009] 1 SLR 305 (refd) Pac-Asian Service Pte Ltd v Westburne International Drilling Ltd [1981-1982] SLR (R) 588; [1986] SLR 390 (refd) Pao On v Lau Yiu Long [1980] AC 614 (refd) Pinnel's Case (1602) 5 Co Rep 117a (refd) Plumley v Horrell (1869) 20 LT......
  • K.G. SOMAPALA ALIAS R.U. SOMAPALA VS. W. A. SUMANASIRI & OTHERS
    • Sri Lanka
    • Supreme Court (Sri Lanka)
    • November 13, 2015
    ...for the document (agreement). Mohamadu Bhai Vs. James (1919) 21 NLR 234; Pathbeniya Vs. Kachohamy 24 NLR 487; 22 NLR 343; 74 NLR 142; (1986) (1) SLR 390. The other cardinal rule in this regard is contained in Section 92 of the Evidence Ordinance but its provisos tends to relax the above pos......
  • CA/HCC 225/10 2023-07-26
    • Sri Lanka
    • Court of Appeal (Sri Lanka)
    • July 26, 2023
    ...27 it does not seem necessary to decide.” This case was referred in by Banadaranayke J in the case of Samson Atygala v. Attorney General 1986 1 SLR 390. In the case of The State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhyaya (1960) 61 Crim L.J 1504 at page 1510 Shah J, held Page 8 of 13 “Section 27 o......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT