The "Great Loyalty"

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chua F A J
• Judgment Date: 05 May 1982
• Neutral Citation: [1982] SGHC 15
• Date: 05 May 1982
• Subject Matter: Maritime liens,Who may sue,Admiralty and Shipping,Whether 'demise charterers'could properly be included in description 'The owners',Parties,Admiralty in rem action,Charter by demise,Whether maritime lien attached to vessel where there was contributory negligence,Admiralty jurisdiction and arrest,Joinder,Practice and procedure of action in rem,Whether 'demise charterers' could be properly included in description 'The owners',Claim for damages as a result of collision,ss 3(2) & (3) High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 6),Civil Procedure
• Docket Number: Admiralty in Rem No 188 of 1974
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: P Selvadurai (Rodyk & Davidson)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: DH Murphy and K Parasuram (Godwin & Co)

The plaintiffs` claim in this case is for damages arising out of a collision which occurred on 15 July 1974 between their ship Oswego Merchant and the defendants` ship Great Loyalty in the Singapore Main Strait. As a result of the collision, the Oswego Merchant sustained damage and was repaired in Singapore.

On 21 October 1980 liability for the collision was by consent adjudged between the parties on the basis of the plaintiffs being 35% to blame and the defendants being 65% to blame.

The assessment of damages was referred to the assistant registrar who awarded the sum of S$4,590,333.92 and an interest rate of 11% to run from 1 January 1975.

The defendants now by motion in objection apply to a judge in court to set aside the decision of the assistant registrar as to the damages in so far as the same relate to items 15 and 18 of the plaintiffs` claim and to totally disallow those two items. Item 15 was for `detention of vessel` amounting to S$1,235,749.59 and item 18 was for `crew`s wages` amounting to S$117,961.75. The points of the objections are that items 15 and 18 were not incurred or suffered by the plaintiffs at all and that they were items claimable, if at all, by the charterers of the Oswego Merchant and not by the plaintiffs and that the charterers are not parties to this action.

The relevant facts are these. The Oswego Merchant is owned by Oswego Merchant Corp. By a demise charter dated 17 February 1971 the vessel was chartered to Gatx Oswego Corp. By art 2(a) of the demise charter the `Demise Charterer shall have the full use of the vessel and may employ the vessel as required to perform the Time Charters`. Article 2(b) provides:

Demise Charterers shall have exclusive possession and control of the vessel and shall man, victual, navigate and operate the vessel at its own expense or by its own procurement throughout the Charter period. The master, officers and crew of the vessel shall be engaged and employed by Demise Charterer and shall remain Demise Charter`s servants, navigating and working the vessel on behalf of and at the risk of Demise Charterer. The company shall not have any interest in any salvage moneys earned by the vessel or received by Demise Charterer.

The vessel at the date of the collision was under time charter to a third party. The writ in rem in this action was issued on 27 September 1974 in the name of `The owners of the ship or vessel Oswego Merchant` as plaintiffs against `The owners of the ship or vessel `Great Loyalty` as defendants.

The contention of the defendants is that at the date of the institution of the writ on 27 September 1974 the plaintiffs were not in possession of their vessel. The possession and control of the vessel had been transferred to the demise charterers who had the beneficial use of the vessel. The defendants submit that the demise charterers are not the owners of the vessel for the purposes of this action. The defendants say that item 15, the claim for the detention of the vessel, must be the claim of either the time charterers or the demise charterers, it cannot be that of the plaintiffs. As regards item 18 - crew`s wages - that again is not a claim that can be raised by the plaintiffs since they did not employ the master and the crew and consequently they did not pay their wages.

The main issue here is whether the demise...