The "Brunei 602"

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeT Kulasekaram J
Judgment Date17 February 1984
Neutral Citation[1984] SGCA 4
Docket NumberCivil Appeal No 42 of 1983
Date17 February 1984
Published date19 September 2003
Year1984
Plaintiff CounselA Reddy (Niru & Co)
Citation[1984] SGCA 4
Defendant CounselG Pannirselvam (Drew & Napier)
CourtCourt of Appeal (Singapore)
Subject MatterPlaintiffs not allowed to circumvent 'single arrest rule',Admiralty jurisdiction and arrest,Both tug and barge owned by same company,Admiralty and Shipping,Cargo lost at sea,ss 3(1) & 4(4) High Court Admiralty Jurisdiction Act (Cap 6),Whether plaintiffs may arrest sister ship,Claim against owners of tug and owners of barge,Arrest of tug,Action in rem

This appeal arises from an application by the first and second respondents herein (the first and second defendants) in an Admiralty action in rem to set aside proceedings against the second defendants on the following grounds:

(a) that the appellants (plaintiffs) having invoked the Admiralty jurisdiction against a vessel, namely the tug `Hai Hin 28`, belonging to the first defendants and arrested it, are thereafter precluded from proceeding against another vessel (in the instant case the dumb barge Brunei 602) owned by the first defendants;

(b) that of duplicity of the claim against the same defendants.



The relevant facts may be stated briefly.


On or about 10 May 1981 there were shipped under a bill of lading of the same date 398 pieces of coal tar enamel coated pipes in three different sizes `On board the ship `Brunei 602` towed by the tug `Hai Hin 28` in or at the Port of Singapore` (as stated in the said bill of lading) for carriage to and delivery at Handil II Samarinda, Indonesia.
The plaintiffs were at all material times the owner of the said goods. These goods had been laden aboard the dumb barge `Brunei 602` and it was to be towed to its destination by the tug. Both the dumb barge and the tug were at all material times owned by Seng Leong Seong Shipping Enterprises (Pte) Ltd of Singapore. On 29 May 1981 the goods, whilst being so transported to their destination, fell into the sea off the coast of Kalimantan near Tanjong Puting and were totally lost.

It was in these circumstances that on 26 June 1982 the plaintiffs issued their writ in Admiralty in rem No 487 of 1982 against the first defendants as the owners of the tug `Hai Hin 28` and the second Defendants as the owners of the barge `Brunei 602`.
The indorsement to the writ reads: `The plaintiffs, as owners of goods and/or holders of the Bill of Lading shipped on board the second defendants` vessel `Brunei 602` for carrying from Singapore to Balikpappan, claim against the first Defendants or alternatively the second Defendants for negligence and/or breach of contract and/or breach of duty in respect of loss to the said goods during the said voyage.`

The tug was arrested on 3 February 1983.
The first and second defendants entered conditional appearance to the writ on 11 February 1983 without prejudice to their applying to set aside the writ or service thereof, and, accordingly, on 18 February 1983 they filed an application by way of summons for an order that the proceedings against the second defendants be set aside on the grounds as hereinbefore stated. The application was heard before the learned deputy registrar who acceded to the application and ordered that all proceedings against the second defendants be set aside. The plaintiffs appealed against his order. The appeal was heard before Abdul Wahab Ghows J who dismissed the appeal.

The plaintiffs now appeal against the decision of Abdul Wahab Ghows J.

The defendants do not dispute that the claim of the plaintiffs for the loss of the said goods is within the listed provisions of s 3(1) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 6) (the Act), but
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • The "Damavand"
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 5 Agosto 1992
    ... ... in rem of the court under s 4(4) of the Act may be enforced either against the offending ship or any other ship in the same ownership (sister ship) but not more than one sister ship (see ` The Banco ` Monte Ulia v Banco & Ors [1971] P 137 at p 153 per Lord Denning MR and ` Brunei 602 ` Owners of Cargo aboard MV `Brunei 602` v Owners of MV `Hai Hin 28` & Anor [1984] 1 MLJ 227 at p 230 per AP Rajah J delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal). It is also clear that where a plaintiff has several causes of action against a ship he may so organize his causes of action in ... ...
  • The "Damavand"
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 31 Mayo 1993
    ... ... The contrary intention does not appear here. The jurisdiction may be invoked against either the offending ship or any other ship in the same ownership, but not more than one ... The decision in The Banco [1971] P 137 was followed by this court in `Brunei 602`, Owners of Cargo Aboard MV v MV Hai Hin 28, Owners of, & Anor [1984] 1 MLJ 227 In that case, the cargo consisting of 390 pieces of coated pipes was loaded on board a dumb barge Brunei 602 towed by the tug Hai Hin 28 for carriage from Singapore to Indonesia. On the way the cargo fell ... ...
  • The "Fierbinti"
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 15 Octubre 1994
    ... ... Nor is this the view urged upon us by counsel for the appellants. We therefore need not consider this further. Suffice it to say that on the authorities (which we shall discuss in a moment), this is not the view to which we are disposed to subscribe. In The Brunei 602 ,11 the cargo consisting of 390 pieces of coated pipes was loaded on board a dumb barge Brunei 602 towed by the tug Hai Hin 28 for carriage from Singapore to Indonesia. On the way, the cargo fell into the sea off the coast of Kalimantan and was totally lost. The plaintiffs took out a writ against ... ...
  • Equatorial Marine Fuel Management Services Pte Ltd v The "Bunga Melati 5"
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 7 Julio 2010
    ...but not against both ships. This principle laid down in The Banco has been accepted as part of Singapore law. In The Brunei 602 [1983-1984] SLR(R) 306 (“The Brunei”), the court held (at [13]): In our judgment it is now settled law that when a plaintiff brings an action in rem against more t......

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