The "Big Beacher"

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chua F A J
• Judgment Date: 24 April 1984
• Neutral Citation: [1984] SGCA 9
• Citation: [1984] SGCA 9
• Defendant Counsel: K Parasuram (Godwin & Co)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: C Arul and S Balamubramaniam (Arul & Partners)
• Date: 24 April 1984
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 99 of 1981
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Civil Procedure,Renewal,Principles applicable,Exercise of court's discretion,Writ,Writ of summons,Court's discretion,Action in rem,O 6 r 7(1) Rules of the Supreme Court 1970,Admiralty jurisdiction and arrest,Admiralty and Shipping

At the conclusion of the hearing of this appeal, we dismissed it with costs. We now give our reasons.

By a writ of summons issued on 28 November 1977 the appellants made an in remclaim against the owners and other persons interested in the vessel `Big Beacher` ex `Heavy Lift Hero` for damages for the non-delivery of the timber which they had shipped in 1976 under five bills of lading on the vessel from Singapore to Dubai. The writ was renewed on two occasions.

A third renewal of the writ was also obtained. In support of their application to renew the writ on the third occasion for a further period of 12 months from 28 November 1980, it was deposed in an affidavit on behalf of the appellants that the vessel had not called at Singapore during the period 28 November 1979 to 27 November 1980 and that therefore it had not been possible to effect service of the writ on the vessel. On that basis, the writ was renewed.

On 5 August 1981, the appellants served the extended writ on the vessel which was arrested on the same day.

The new owners of the vessel, Leco Marine SA, obtained leave to intervene in the proceedings. Their conditional appearance was followed by their application to set aside the writ of summons, the warrant of arrest issued and the service thereof on the ground that O 6 r 7(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1970 was not complied with. In support of their application, the interveners proved that the vessel had called at Singapore on 29 September 1980 and had remained within our jurisdiction until 10 March 1981. It was accordingly contended on their behalf that the appellants had failed to take all reasonable steps to serve the writ during the relevant currency of the writ. It was further contended on their behalf that where, as in the present case, the cause of action, to which the writ related, had become time-barred, the authorities establish the principle that the court should not exercise its discretion to renew the writ, and by doing so, deprive the respondents of an otherwise good defence to the claim, unless there were exceptional circumstances which amounted to a good and sufficient cause for doing so.

In opposing the application, the appellants through their solicitors deposed that their only source of information was the records kept by the Port of Singapore Authority to whom they had made regular telephonic enquiries. It appeared that their enquiries made in 1978 with Lloyd`s Intelligence Service through their London...