The "Kota Pahlawan"

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chua F A J
• Judgment Date: 13 May 1982
• Neutral Citation: [1982] SGCA 7
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 64 of 1981
• Date: 13 May 1982
• Year: 1982
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: G Pannirselvam and Roop Prakash (Drew & Napier)
• Citation: [1982] SGCA 7
• Defendant Counsel: K Pillai Nirumalan and K Gopalan (Wu & Rajah)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Leave to amend,Bills of Lading Act 1855,Contract of carriage by sea,Parties,Indorsement of plaintiffs' address,Proper party to sue,Court must be satisfied that mistake was genuine,O 20 r 5(2) & (3) Rules of the Supreme Court 1970,Writ in rem,Proceedings and procedure of action in rem,Admiralty and Shipping,Whether consignees or shippers to sue

This appeal concerns the circumstances under which an amendment to a writ be allowed under O 20 sub-rr 5(2) and 5(3) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1970 (the Rules) which read as follows:

(2) Where an application to the court for leave to make the amendment mentioned in para (3), (4) or (5) is made after any relevant period of limitation current at the date of issue of the writ has expired, the court may nevertheless grant such leave in the circumstances mentioned in that paragraph if it thinks it just to do so.

(3) An amendment to correct the name of a party may be allowed under para (2) notwithstanding that it is alleged that the effect of the amendment will be to substitute a new party if the court is satisfied that the mistake sought to be corrected was a genuine mistake and was not misleading or such as to cause any reasonable doubt as to the identity of the person intending to sue or, as the case may be, intended to be sued.

On 11 May 1981 the learned assistant registrar granted leave to the respondents to amend the indorsement of the address of the respondents at p 3 of the admiralty in rem writ of summons in the following manner:

From:

This writ was issued by Wu & Raja of No 205 Colombo Court, Singapore, Solicitors for the said plaintiff(s) whose address is at 34 Lorong 32, Geylang Road, Singapore 14 (the Singapore address).

To:

This writ was issued by Wu & Raja of No 205 Colombo Court, Singapore, Solicitors for the said plaintiff(s) whose address is at Jalan Sunan Ampel, No 12, Jakarta, Indonesia, and is a partnership firm with limited liability and registered according to the laws of Indonesia (the Indonesian address).

An appeal against the decision of the learned assistant registrar to the judge in chambers was dismissed with costs. Against the decision of the learned judge this appeal was brought. At the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal before us, we allowed the appeal. We now give our reasons.

A brief chronology of a few vital dates and events is necessary to an understanding of the issues. As evidenced by a bill of lading numbered 2 and dated 6 January 1979 Universal Union Trading Co Pte Ltd (the shippers) of the Singapore address shipped on board the appellants` vessel Kota Pahlawan 315 cases of automotive spare parts for carriage from Singapore to Tanjong Priok/Jakarta, Indonesia. The goods were to be delivered to the order of The Chase Manhattan Bank NA or their order. As the goods were shipped out of Singapore the contract of carriage was subject to the Carriage of Good by Sea Act 1972 (Cap 30) of Singapore. Under art III r 6 of the Schedule to the Act, the limitation period within which claims against the appellants must be brought was one year from the date of the delivery of the goods at the port of destination or the date on which the goods ought to have been delivered at the port of destination.

In the event, the vessel Kota Pahlawan arrived at Tanjong Priok on 10 January 1979. The bill of lading was endorsed to CV Agung (the consignees) of the Indonesian address who took delivery of the goods.

The period of limitation would have ended on 9 January 1980 but at the request of the shippers the appellants agreed to extend the period of limitation to 10 April 1980. On 10 April 1980 an admiralty action in rem was commenced by `The Owners of the Cargo lately laden on board the ship or vessel "Kota Pahlawan" as "the plaintiffs"`. The Singapore address of the shippers was given at p 3 of the writ as the address of `the plaintiffs`. The writ was as prescribed in Form 155 and the...