The "Damavand"

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeKarthigesu J
Judgment Date05 August 1992
Neutral Citation[1992] SGHC 215
Docket NumberAdmiralty in Rem No 489 of 1989
Date05 August 1992
Year1992
Published date19 September 2003
Plaintiff CounselSteven Chong and Douglas Choo (Drew & Napier)
Citation[1992] SGHC 215
Defendant CounselMJ Namazie and Tan Teng Muan (Mallal & Namazie)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Subject MatterAmendment of indorsement on a writ,Admiralty and Shipping,Test for material non-disclosure,Arrest of vessel,Civil Procedure,Admiralty jurisdiction and arrest,Whether permitted,s 4(4) Construction of High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123),'An action in rem',Whether 'an action in rem' can include more than one action,Disclosure of material facts,Words and Phrases,Action in rem,The singular sense includes the plural,Construction of statute,High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123) S 4(4),Writ of summons,Statutory Interpretation,Whether a claim could be deleted from one writ and a fresh writ issued on it,Rule of construction,Time for amendment

Cur Adv Vult

On 24 October 1989 International Paint Ltd (`International Paint`) commenced an admiralty action in rem against the owners of the ship or vessel Minab 4. The claim as indorsed on the writ was `for goods and materials supplied to the ships or vessels Alamoot, Bisoton, Khark 2, Shir Kooh and Taftan all of the port of Bandar Abbas at various ports including the port of Singapore for the period from 1988 to 1989 at the request of the defendants, their servants or agents` (`the Minab 4 proceedings`). The owners of the Minab 4 at the date of the issue of the writ were National Iranian Tanker Co. The owners of Alamoot, Bisoton, Khark 2, Shir Kooh and Taftan when the goods and materials were supplied to them were also the National Iranian Tanker Co. Thus International Paint invoked s 4(4)(b) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123) (`the Act`) to commence the Minab 4 proceedings against the Minab 4.

The Minab 4 was arrested in the Minab 4 proceedings on 24 October 1989 at 5.15pm, at which time the writ in the Minab 4 proceedings was also served on the Minab 4.


On 25 October 1989 International Paint amended the indorsement of claim on the writ by striking out the reference to the Bisoton pursuant to O 20 r 1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1970 (`the RSC`).
On the same date, but after the amendment was effected (admitted by the defendants), International Paint commenced this admiralty in rem action (`the Damavand proceedings`) against the owners of the ship or vessel Damavand which, too, was owned by the National Iranian Tanker Co, claiming `for goods and materials supplied to the ship or vessel Bisoton of the port of Bandar Abbas at a port in Portugal in or about the months of April 1989 to June 1989 at the request of the defendants, their servants or agents`. The Damavand was arrested on 25 October 1989 at 5pm, at which time the writ was also served on her.

It is of relevance to note that no particulars of the goods and materials supplied or of the amounts claimed, either with reference to each of the five vessels originally included in the claim against Minab 4 or generally is given in the indorsement of claim in the Minab 4 proceedings.
So also no particulars of the goods and materials supplied to the Bisoton or the amount claimed is given in the indorsement of claim against the Damavand in the Davamand proceedings. These particulars are also not given in the respective affidavits leading to the arrests of the Minab 4 and the Damavand. This is not surprising as the indorsements of claim need only be general in nature (see O 6 r 2(1)(a)) and the affidavit leading to the arrest only requires the nature of the claim to be stated (see O 70 r 4(6)(b)). The particulars of the claim were given later. In the Minab 4 proceedings, the statement of claim delivered on 1 December 1989, no doubt having regard to the amendment to the indorsement of the claim, restricted the claim to the goods and materials supplied to the Alamoot, Khark 2, Shir Kooh and Taftan of which particulars were given. No statement of claim has yet been delivered in the Damavand proceedings of the claim for the goods and materials supplied to the Bisoton.

The defendants applied by summons to set aside the writ in rem and the warrant of arrest in the Damavand proceedings on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction; that the action and/or the arrest was frivolous and vexatious; and that the action and/or the arrest was an abuse of the process of the court.
An alternative ground that the action ought to be stayed pursuant to the terms of a supply contract between International Paint and the National Iranian Tanker Co dated 26 January 1989 was withdrawn and not proceeded with. The defendants also claimed damages, to be assessed, for all losses suffered by them as a result of the wrongful arrest of the Damavand.

Following certain events which I have discussed in my judgment to be delivered in the Minab 4 proceedings contemporaneously with this judgment but not relevant here, the Damavand was released from the arrest on 1 November 1989.


The senior assistant registrar who heard this application on 19 April 1990 dismissed it with costs to be taxed, if not agreed.
The defendants now appeal against that decision.

The defendants` `want of jurisdiction` argument is a novel one.
It is that since the admiralty jurisdiction of the court was invoked when the Minab 4 was arrested in the Minab 4 proceedings on 24 October 1989 for a claim for goods and materials supplied to the defendants` vessels which included the goods and materials supplied to the Bisoton, it was no longer possible to invoke the admiralty jurisdiction of the court again in the Damavand proceedings against the Damavand and arrest her for the goods and materials supplied to the Bisoton, notwithstanding that the claim for goods and materials supplied to the Bisoton had been deleted from the claim against the Minab 4 before the Damavand proceedings were commenced against the Damavand, and it must be added before any judgment in default of appearance had been entered against the Minab 4 and indeed before the time limited for entry of appearance had expired. Accordingly, it is said that the arrest of the Damavand was wrongful. In support of this proposition, it was submitted that if this were permitted, it would, firstly, contravene the so-called `single ship arrest rule` and, secondly, it would contravene the well-established principle that a judgment in default of appearance in an in rem action is a judgment only against the ship arrested and no personal liability can arise against her owners. Hence, the right of a shipowner to abandon his ship to a plaintiff in an admiralty in rem action to satisfy the plaintiffs` claim by the defendants choosing not to enter an appearance would be seriously prejudiced. A further argument was advanced on the construction of s 4(4) of the Act.

I will now discuss these propositions for which no authorities were cited in support and which, in my view, cannot be supported in principle.


It is clear that the admiralty jurisdiction 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 such a way as to distribute some of them against that ship , some of them against a sister ship and others of them against another sister ship provided that the causes of action are kept separate and distinct. See ` The Permina Samudra XIV ` ; Martropico Compania Naviera SA v Owners and Persons Interested in The `Permina Samudra XIV `3 at pp 48-49 where Wee Chong Jin CJ, delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal, said:

The appellants contend that Choor Singh J erred in law in finding that notwithstanding the fact that in a contract providing for the payment of a sum of money by instalments a fresh cause of action arises on each occasion when there is a failure to pay upon the due date nevertheless when a number of such instalments had become due they merged and became a single debt recoverable by a single writ. Mr Stone, for the respondents, concedes, and in our opinion rightly so, that there is no doctrine of merger but he submits that the word `claim` in s 4(4) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act must be intended by the legislature to mean `maritime claim` and that the
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • The "Damavand"
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 31 May 1993
  • The "Fierbinti"
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 15 October 1994
    ... ... This, in fact, is the position taken by Lord Denning MR in The Banco , namely, that the in rem jurisdiction is invoked when both the writ is served and the warrant of arrest is executed. The above passage was quoted with approval in The Damavand , a decision of this court. In that case, the respondents had several claims against the appellants in respect of various contracts for goods and materials supplied to the appellants` vessels. Initially, one writ only was issued. The ship Minab 4 was served with the writ and was arrested. After ... ...

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