The "Indriani"

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: G P Selvam J
• Judgment Date: 31 May 1995
• Neutral Citation: [1995] SGHC 139
• Docket Number: Admiralty in Rem No 567 of 1993
• Date: 31 May 1995
• Year: 1995
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Jainil Bhandari (Khattar Wong & Pnrs)
• Citation: [1995] SGHC 139
• Defendant Counsel: Belinda Ang (Ang & Pnrs)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Words and Phrases,Admiralty jurisdiction and arrest,Whether 'arising out of any agreement relating to the carriage of goods in ... ships or to the use ... of the ship',Admiralty and Shipping,Claim for deceit, fraud and malicious falsehood,Admiralty jurisdiction,s 3(1)(h) High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123),Whether 'arising out of any agreement relating to the carriage of goods in ...ships or to the use ... of the ship',Courts and Jurisdiction,Action in rem,High court,'Arising out of'

This is an appeal from the decision of Assistant Registrar Mr Ronald Choo. The question relates to the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court.

The amended indorsement of claim in the writ reads as follows:

The plaintiffs` claim is for the sum of US$567,389.57 or damages arising from a breach of a charterparty dated 27 March 1993 made between the plaintiffs and defendants in respect of the defendants` vessel `Indriani` and or misrepresentation, deceit, fraud and or for negligence/carelessness, conspiracy to defraud/injure, malicious falsehood and or unlawful interference in and about the condition of about 3,356.68 metric tons of Chinese Sesame Seed Expeller prior to loading on board the said vessel.

The defendants say that the claim does not come within the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court. The plaintiffs on the other hand assert that it falls under s 3(1)(h) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123). The section reads as follows:

The admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court shall be as follows, that is to say, jurisdiction to hear and determine any of the following questions or claims:

(h) any claim arising out of any agreement relating to the carriage of goods in a ship or to the use or hire of a ship.

Background facts

The allegations of facts which give rise to the action are as follows.

The plaintiffs, a Singapore company, on 22 February 1993 contracted to sell a certain quantity of Chinese sesame seed expeller (the cargo) to an Indonesian company called PT Metro Inti Sejahtera Indonesia (Metro). The sales contract provided for payment by letter of credit. One of the documents called for by the credit was a `clean on board bill of lading`. This requirement imposed an obligation on the plaintiffs to ship the cargo in good conditions. It also said that stale and charterparty bills of lading were acceptable. The price was US$465 per metric ton `CNFFO`, that is cost and freight free out.

As the obligation for arranging transport rested with the plaintiffs, they entered into a charterparty on 27 March 1993 with the defendant shipowners for the carriage of the cargo from Lianyungang in China to Indonesia for delivery to Metro. On or about 20 April 1993, the cargo was shipped from Lianyungang and a clean bill of lading was issued by the defendants. The cargo was discharged at Jakarta between 30 April 1993 and 2 May 1993. Upon discharge it was found that the cargo was in a bad condition. On 10 June 1993, the defendants wrote a letter to Metro alleging that the cargo was wet, warm and malodorous at the time of loading at Lianyungang and that the cargo was rejected by the ship`s agents. If that allegation is true the plaintiffs were not only in breach of the sales contract in not shipping cargo in good condition but also by knowingly tendering a false bill of lading under the credit and thereby making a false representation to Metro that the cargo was in good condition when in fact it was not. The plaintiffs allege that as a result of this letter, Metro refused to pay the plaintiffs for the cargo.

On 24 August 1993, the plaintiffs commenced this admiralty action in rem against the defendants` vessel `Indriani`. Their original indorsement of claim, read as follows:

The plaintiffs` claim is for the sum of US$567,389.57 or damages arising from a breach of a charterparty dated 27 March 1993 made between the plaintiffs and defendants in respect of the defendants` vessel `Indriani` and or misrepresentation, deceit and or fraud in and about the condition of about 3,356.68 metric tons of Chinese Sesame Seed Expeller prior to loading on board the said vessel.

The defendants were at all material times the owners and or charterers and or in possession or in control of the `Indriani`, and were at the time of issue of the writ herein, the owners of the `Alas`, `Banowati`, `Embo`, `Gayatri` and `Hanjani`.

An appearance was entered by the defendants on 21 January 1994 and on 30 March 1994 the defendants applied for an order to stay all further proceedings on the ground that the parties to the action had agreed under the charterparty to submit their dispute to arbitration in Singapore. The plaintiffs contended that they were not claiming under the charterparty. They said in essence that their claim was in the nature of the tort of the misrepresentation and relied on the letter of 10 June 1993. The defendants replied by saying that the facts as alleged by the plaintiffs did not disclose a cause of action because the plaintiffs did not rely on the misrepresentation to their detriment. Assistant Registrar Mr Ronald Choo agreed with the defendants on this point as the element of reliance was necessary to found a cause of action in tort. The plaintiffs did not rely on the alleged misrepresentation contained in the letter of 10 June 1993 to their detriment. The assistant registrar, however, went on to suggest to the plaintiffs that the law recognizes a tort where A makes a false statement to B and B relies on that statement to act in a manner which is detrimental to C. In such cases it may be possible for C to sue A, the maker of the false statement, for the damage caused to C under the tort of `injurious falsehood` or `malicious falsehood.` The application was adjourned to enable the plaintiffs to amend their indorsement to include the cause of action suggested by the assistant registrar. The...