The "Courageous Colocotronis"

• Judge: T Kulasekaram J
• Judgment Date: 25 May 1978
• Neutral Citation: [1978] SGHC 31
• Year: 1978
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Citation: [1978] SGHC 31
• Defendant Counsel: P Selvadurai (Rodyk and Davidson),S Selvadurai (Selvadurai & Emmanuel)
• Subject Matter: O 70 r 4(6)(b) Rules of the Supreme Court 1970,Duty of disclosure,Admiralty and Shipping,Warrant of arrest,Practice and procedure of action in rem,Bare claim
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Denis Murphy and Raj Kumar (Donaldson & Burkinshaw)

The plaintiffs Minos Colocotronis and his two nephews Alexander Georgiadis and Antony Georgiadis commenced an admiralty suit in rem no 472/1977 on 27 October 1977 and the ship Courageous Colocotronis of the port of Piraeus now known as the Atlantic Conqueror of the Port of Monrovia (hereinafter referred to as the said vessel) lying at a dockyard in the Port of Singapore, was arrested on 23 November 1977 on a Warrant of Arrest issued on 22 November 1977.

In the affidavit leading to the warrant of arrest Mr Loh Boon Huat, solicitor acting for the plaintiffs, had stated that plaintiffs` claim is for a declaration that they are the sole beneficial owners of the said vessel and had also exhibited an affidavit sworn by Minos Colocotronis on behalf of himself and the two other plaintiffs on 3 November 1977 at London. In that affidavit Minos Colocotronis stated that the plaintiffs are the sole beneficial owners of all the issued and outstanding shares of Navegantes Universal SA (hereinafter referred to as Navegantes), a Panamanian Corporation, which were the registered owners of the said vessel. The Navegantes owned just this vessel.

The defendants, the European American Banking Corp, (hereinafter referred to as EABC) are a New York banking corporation which financed Navegantes in the sum of US$6,600,000 on a loan agreement for the purchase of the said vessel supported by the mortgage of the ship by Navegantes to EABC and in addition the personal guarantees of the plaintiffs.

The defendants EABC entered a conditional appearance and applied by way of motion to have the writ of summons and all subsequent proceedings struck out on the grounds:

(a) That they are frivolous or vexatious, alternatively.

(b) That they are an abuse of the process of the court.

(c) That the writ, affidavit leading to the warrant of arrest and the warrant of arrest herein are defective in law.

Another corporation called the United Maritime No 2 Tanker Transport, Inc (hereinafter called UMTT) who claimed to be the present owners of the said vessel having purchased the said vessel from Reefer Transportation Co who had in turn purchased it from Navegantes also entered a conditional appearance and made a similar application to that of the defendants EABC, on similar grounds.

Both these motions were heard together and I propose to deal first of all with the ground that the writ, the affidavit leading to the warrant of arrest and the warrant of arrest herein were defective in law.

It is the contention of the defendants that the affidavit leading to the warrant of arrest was defective in that it did not comply with O 70 r 4(6)(b). This rule reads:

Every affidavit must state -

(b) the nature of the claim or counterclaim in respect of which the warrant is required and that it has not been satisfied.

The affidavit leading to the warrant of arrest alleges that the plaintiffs claim to be the beneficial owners of the said vessel on the basis that they hold all the shares of Navegantes the company which is the registered legal owner of the said vessel. In the absence of any further allegation or circumstances this bare claim by the plaintiffs is not a proper one in law. If that were so it would amount to the plaintiffs not having disclosed the nature of their claim in the affidavit. It is submitted by the defendants that such non-compliance of the rule would render the warrant of arrest a nullity and not an irregularity which could be cured and they rely on the decision in The Hoe Lee [1970] 1 MLJ 45 .

Mr Murphy...