The ‘Eagle Prestige’
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Belinda Ang Saw Ean J |
Judgment Date | 23 March 2010 |
Neutral Citation | [2010] SGHC 93 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Vivian Ang, Leona Wong and Henry Ng (Allen & Gledhill LLP) |
Date | 23 March 2010 |
Hearing Date | 20 May 2009,27 May 2009,29 May 2009 |
Docket Number | Admiralty in Rem No 233 of 2008 (Registrar's Appeal No 178 of 2009) |
Year | 2010 |
Citation | [2010] SGHC 93 |
Defendant Counsel | Timothy Tan and Magdalene Chew (AsiaLegal LLC) |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Published date | 01 April 2010 |
This Registrar’s Appeal No 178 of 2009 (“RA 178”) was brought by the plaintiff, T S Lines Ltd, to reverse a decision of the Assistant Registrar (“AR”) made on 13 May 2009 to set aside the arrest of the
By way of summary, the proceedings herein arose out of the grounding of the
On arrival at Tanjong Priok, the
It is the plaintiff’s case that in breach of the May sub-charter, EP Carriers had directed the
The
Fortunately for the plaintiff, the writ
The circumstances leading to the plaintiff’s arrest of the
… we find that there is a special provision in Clause 90 [of the Head Charterparty] which states that “The Charterers shall not be responsible for… loss or damage to the vessel and/or other objects arising from perils insured by customary policies of insurance” and Clause 102 states that the owner has a proper hull insurance against all hull risks. As the repair costs arising out of the ship’s damage is well covered by the ship’s Hull insurance policy, Clause 90 will take effect and the [plaintiff] is not responsible for the [head owner’s] loss covered by their insurer.
It was common ground that the head charter and May sub-charter were back to back, and there was a comparable provision in the May sub-charter. Capital Gate Holdings Pte Ltd (“Capital Gate”) who intervened in the proceedings alleged that cl 90 was a complete defence to the plaintiff’s claim, and as such was a material fact that should have been (but was not) disclosed in the affidavits leading the warrant of arrest (see
On 6 November 2008, The Swedish Club, on behalf of the head owner, replied rejecting the alleged defence with the counter argument that “the damage caused by the ship’s grounding [was] a peril that [was] covered under the prevailing c/p.” The Swedish Club also stated that the head owner had already notified EP Carriers of the repairs made to
As [the plaintiff’s] C/P terms with you are on back to back basis and in other words [the plaintiff] is entitled to bring an indemnity claim on similar grounds as contended by the headowner against you, we are grateful that you can confirm to furnish an acceptable form of security for the owner’s claim plus interest and costs to [the plaintiff].
EP Carriers had presumably notified the claim to its insurers because some 18 days later, QBE Marine Underwriting Agency Pte Ltd (“QBE”), a subsidiary of QBE Insurance (International) Limited, responded in an email to the plaintiff’s Hong Kong lawyers, DLA Piper (“DLA”). The email of 28 November 2008 stated:4
…
Ernest, you know us very well. We will not run away from our responsibilities as we consider ourselves as reputable insurers. Please rest assured we will sort out the security issue and hence please do not in the meantime take pre-emptive action against the Insured’s vessel.
Since security was not forthcoming, the plaintiff went ahead to file the writ
In the meantime, unbeknown to the plaintiff, EP Carriers had, on 22 December 2008, sold the
TSL had deposed in her 4
To continue reading
Request your trial-
The ‘Bunga Melati 5’
...1 WLR 490 (refd) DPP v Ray [1974] AC 370 (refd) E F Hutton & Co (London) Ltd v Mofarrij [1989] 1 WLR 488 (refd) Eagle Prestige, The [2010] 3 SLR 294 (refd) Empire Shipping Co Inc v Owners of the Ship ‘Shin Kobe Maru’ (1991) 104 ALR 489 (refd) Helby v Matthews [1895] AC 471 (folld) I Congres......
-
Equatorial Marine Fuel Management Services Pte Ltd v The "Bunga Melati 5"
...the Court of Appeal decision in The “Vasiliy Golovnin” [2008] 4 SLR(R) 994 and the recent High Court case of The Eagle Prestige [2010] SGHC 93. As there were proceedings in the United States between the same parties preceding the present suit, cross-jurisdictional questions also arose, name......
-
The "Vinalines Pioneer"
...aside an arrest, striking out and material non-disclosure was explained with admirable clarity by the High Court in The Eagle Prestige [2010] 3 SLR 294 (“The Eagle Prestige”) and The Bunga Melati 5 [2011] 4 SLR 1017 (“The Bunga Melati 5 (HC”). These principles were endorsed by the Court of ......
-
The ‘Vinalines Pioneer’
...time bar cannot be viewed as a “knockout blow” on the merits in the context of an abuse of the arrest process (see The “Eagle Prestige” [2010] 3 SLR 294), the complaint − that there was non-disclosure of the time bar defence to Assistant Registrar Teo Guan Kee (“AR Teo”) who heard the appli......
-
Arrest Of Vessels In Malaysia - No Duty Of Full And Frank Disclosure
...for a warrant of arrest. The High Court therefore held that cases such as The Vasiliy Golovnin [2008] 4 SLR 994 and The 'Eagle Prestige' [2010] 3 SLR 294 which imposed a requirement for full and frank disclosure are inapplicable in Malaysia, due to the differences in both sets of rules of W......
-
Arrest Of Vessels In Malaysia - No Duty Of Full And Frank Disclosure
...for a warrant of arrest. The High Court therefore held that cases such as The Vasiliy Golovnin [2008] 4 SLR 994 and The 'Eagle Prestige' [2010] 3 SLR 294 which imposed a requirement for full and frank disclosure are inapplicable in Malaysia, due to the differences in both sets of rules of W......
-
FULFILLING THE DUTY OF FULL AND FRANK DISCLOSURE IN ARREST OF SHIPS
...4 SLR(R) 994 at [87]. 47 Toh Kian Sing SC, “Admiralty Law” (2008) 9 SAL Ann Rev 54 at 56–57 and 59–60, paras 2.13 and 2.21. 48[2010] 3 SLR 294. 49The Eagle Prestige[2010] 3 SLR 294 at [73] and [84]. 50The Eagle Prestige[2010] 3 SLR 294 at [72]. 51[2016] 1 SLR 1096. 52The Xin Chang Shu[2016]......
-
Admiralty, Shipping and Aviation Law
...down in Tjong Very Sumito, it was not surprising that a stay of the proceedings in favour of arbitration was ordered. The Eagle Prestige [2010] 3 SLR 294 2.57 The Eagle Prestige [2010] 3 SLR 294 (‘The Eagle Prestige’) may, in some ways, be seen as a prologue to the Court of Appeal“s decisio......
-
Admiralty, Shipping and Aviation Law
...owner may seek to set aside the warrant of arrest on the basis of non-disclosure of material facts, as was the case in The Eagle Prestige[2010] 3 SLR 294. If the warrant of arrest is set aside in such circumstances, the plaintiff is at liberty to proceed with the claim without security. (c)......
-
Admiralty, Shipping and Aviation Law
...holder. The Bunga Melati 5 [2011] 4 SLR 1017 (The Bunga Melati 5) 2.24 Like The Vasiliy Golovnin[2008] 4 SLR 994 and The Eagle Prestige[2010] 3 SLR 294, respectively reviewed in the SAL Ann Rev for 2008 and 2010, this decision, which runs in excess of 60 pages, touches on important issues i......