The "Blue Fruit"

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 03 September 1979
• Date: 03 September 1979
• Docket Number: Admiralty in Rem No 106 of 1977,Civil Appeal No 66 of 1978
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

The “Blue Fruit”

[1979] SGCA 14

Wee Chong Jin CJ

,

T Kulasekaram J

and

D C D'Cotta J

Civil Appeal No 66 of 1978

Court of Appeal

Admiralty and Shipping–Admiralty jurisdiction and arrest–Action in rem–Arrest of sister vessel in Japan with security furnished–Suit for same cause of action subsequently begun in Singapore–Whether abuse of process of court–Whether proceedings should be struck out or stayed

The respondent was a ship repairer and commenced an action in rem against Universal Seaways Pte Ltd (“USPL”) as owner of the vessel, Blue Fruit, claiming for the costs of materials supplied and repairs done to the ship. Earlier on, the respondent had commenced an action against USPL in the Yokohama District Court where it caused a sister ship owned by USPL, Universal Princess,to be arrested. Security was furnished and the Universal Princess was released. Proceedings were still pending in Yokohama District Court. Chunglien Navigation Co SA (“Chunglien”) who claimed to be the current owner of the ship, Blue Fruit, furnished security to obtain the release of the ship from arrest and applied by motion for the writ of summons and all further proceedings to be set aside, or alternatively, for all further proceedings to be stayed. The motion was dismissed by the High Court. The issue on appeal was whether the High Court judge was correct in refusing the application for the writ and all subsequent proceedings to be struck out or stayed as being vexatious and an abuse of the process of court. The appellant contended that the arrest of Blue Fruit in Singapore after the respondent had commenced an action and obtained security in Yokohama was vexatious and an abuse of court process. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that it should be allowed to proceed with the action in Singapore on its undertaking to discontinue the action in the Yokohama District Court.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) Even though an action is well founded within the jurisdiction of the court there is always an inherent discretion vested in the court whether to entertain such an action or not: at [8].

(2) It was clear that in all the circumstances the Singapore court was the forum conveniens for all the parties to the present action. The finding of the lower court ought not to be disturbed as there were no circumstances which made it an abuse of the process of the court to bring the present proceedings. The appeal was dismissed with costs, subject to the respondent's undertaking to discontinue the Japanese action and to discharge the Japanese security: at [11] and [14].

Christianborg, The (1885) 10 PD 141 (distd)

Marinero, The [1955] P 68; [1955] 1 All ER 676 (distd)

Reinbeck, The (1889) 6 Asp MLC 366; (1889) 60 LT 209 (refd)

Dennis Murphy (Donaldson & Burkinshaw) for the appellant

P Selvadurai (Rodyk & Davidson) for the respondent.

Judgment reserved.

Wee Chong Jin CJ

(delivering the judgment of the court):

1 This is an appeal from the decision of the High Court dismissing the appellants' motion that the writ of summons and all subsequent proceedings in this Admiralty Action in Rem No 106 of 1977 brought by the respondents, as plaintiffs, be set aside for want of jurisdiction in rem under s 4 (4) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 6) or in the alternative that the writ of summons and all subsequent proceedings in the action be either struck out or stayed on the ground that it is vexatious and an abuse of the process of the court.

2 The facts are these. The respondents, Keppel Shipyard Ltd are ship repairers. In February 1976 the vessel Blue Fruit now known as Bright Fruit (hereinafter referred to as “the said vessel”) underwent repairs in the hands of the respondents in their shipyard in the Port of Singapore. After completion or [of] the repairs the said vessel sailed away from Singapore. The then owners, Messrs Universal Seaways Pte Ltd of 130, Robinson Road, Singapore failed to pay the costs of the repairs and materials amounting to $97,349.05.

3 In October 1976 the respondents commenced an action in Manila for the costs of repairs and the said vessel was arrested but this action was however dismissed and the vessel released as the Philippines court in Manila refused to accept jurisdiction.

4 The respondents also commenced in the High Court here an in personam action, Suit No 4117 of 1976, against Universal Seaways Pte Ltd in 1976 in respect of the same claim for the costs of the repairs to the said vessel but this action was later discontinued on 10 March 1977 after the respondents had issued the writ of summons in rem in the present action on 9 March 1977. However, this writ of summons was not served till 30 January 1978 on which day the said vessel was arrested. Subsequently on 15 February 1978 bail in the sum of $150,000 was furnished by Chung Lien Navigation Co SA to satisfy the full amount of the claim including interest and costs and the said vessel was accordingly released.

5 Meanwhile in June 1977 the respondents had commenced an action against Universal Seaways Pte Ltd in Yokohama District Court No 3, Japan, also in respect of the same claim for costs of repairs to the said vessel and caused the vessel Universal Princess owned by Universal Seaways Pte Ltd to be attached for purposes of obtaining security. The Universal Princess was released on 7 July 1977 after security in the sum of 4,000,000 yen was deposited in court by Universal Seaways Pte Ltd for the full extent of the respondents' claim against them.

6 On the ground of want of jurisdiction the appellants claimed that after the repairs in question had been completed on the said vessel and prior to the issue of writ of summons herein, the said vessel had been sold by the previous owners, Universal Seaways Pte Ltd to Chung Lien Navigation...