The "Opal 3" ex "Kuchino"
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Court | High Court (Singapore) |
| Judge | Edben |
| Judgment Date | 06 June 1992 |
| Neutral Citation | [1992] SGHC 156 |
| Citation | [1992] SGHC 156 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Tongel Yeo (Chong Yeo & Partners) |
| Published date | 19 September 2003 |
| Date | 06 June 1992 |
| Defendant Counsel | Sarjit Singh (C Arul & Partners),Goh Wing Sun (JYP Chia & Co) |
| Docket Number | Admiralty in Rem No 223 of 1992 |
| Subject Matter | Possessory lien,Requirements to invoke admiralty jurisdiction,'Owners',Whether conclusive evidence of ownership,Intervener's claim of wrongful arrest of ships by plaintiffs,Principles applied to determine beneficial ownership,Words and Phrases,Court's power to release ships under O 70 r 12(4) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1970,s 4(4) High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123),Whether interveners were 'owners',Admiralty jurisdiction and arrest,Ownership of vessels,Admiralty and Shipping,Meaning of 'owner',Effect of registration,Claim of wrongful arrest of ships,Action in rem,ss 3 & 4 High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123),Exercise of court's discretion,Priority |
The matters for my decision were: first, an application to set aside the writ and the warrant of arrest, and secondly, an application for the sale pendente lite of the Opal 3 ex Kuchino (`the ship`) subject to a possessory lien which the plaintiffs claimed. Similar applications were made in respect of two sister ships, the Kataysk and the Kantemir (`the sister ships`), in Admiralty in Rem Nos 224 and 225 of 1992.
The main question called for the determination of the meaning and content of the expression `beneficial owner` as it appears in s 4(4) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123) (`the Act`).
First the facts. The Kuchino and the sister ships were placed at the plaintiffs` shipyard to effect repairs and improvements. The ships at all material times were on the Russian Register of Ships at the port of Murmansk under the ownership of Fishing Collective Farm Leninets (`the Leninets`). In July 1991 Leninets entered into a joint venture agreement with Emerald Fisheries (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd (`Emerald`), a Singapore company, and Opal Fisheries Pty Ltd, an Australian company, to operate the ships after the repairs and improvements. It was acknowby Leninets in a subsequent agreement dated 27 December 1991 that Emerald had taken delivery of the ships and proceeded to refit them and prepare them to commence deep sea fishing activities as agreed under various contracts entered into previously. Emerald in turn placed the ships with the plaintiffs who performed works and improvements on them from September 1991 till March 1992. The plaintiffs claimed that they were not paid and asserted a possessory lien over the ships. The possessory lien by itself afforded no means of satisfaction to the plaintiffs as they did not have a right of sale. Further, no one else had arrested the ships. It therefore became necessary for them to invoke the statutory right of arrest and have the ships sold to enforce their claim.
On 20 March 1992 the plaintiffs issued the admiralty actions in rem against the ships and caused them to be arrested on 27 March 1992. The affidavits leading the warrants of arrest stated that Emerald would be liable to the plaintiffs in an action in personam and that Emerald were the owners of the ships when the cause of action arose. It was further made out in the affidavits that at the time of the issue of the writ, Emerald were the beneficial owners of all the shares in the ships. In support of the assertions, the plaintiffs, in relation to each ship, relied on a bill of sale and acceptance of sale showing Leninets as transferors and Emerald as transferees and executed by Leninets on 6 November 1991 before a notary public in Singapore. The bill of sale and acceptance of sale was in Panamanian form. The notary public certified that sufficient proof had been produced to him that the vendors (Leninets) were, immediately prior to the execution of the bill of sale, the owners of the relevant ship and had the right to sell and transfer that ship and the person executing the bill of sale had the power to do so, and further, that that ship was free from encumbrances and maritime liens.
On 24 April 1992 the plaintiffs filed notices to move the court for orders that the ships be appraised and sold pendente lite without prejudice to their possessory lien. The motions were entered for hearing on 22 May 1992.
On 27 April 1992 Leninets obtained an order to intervene in the action to oppose the purpose of the plaintiffs. A purported affidavit was made by Alexandre G Vassine, the president of Leninets. `Purported affidavit` because it was signed before the head of the consular department of the USSR Embassy in Singapore who is not recognized as having the power to administer oaths and affirmations in Singapore in respect of documents to be used in Singapore. Therein the president stated that Leninets were the registered owners of the ship and that the ship remained on the Russian register. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Alexandrea
...(iii) the 2-stage test in s 4(4) of the Act - that is to say, satisfy the in personam and in rem test. (See: Selvam J in The "Opal 3" [1992] 2 SLR 585 at (i) Section 3 (1) (l) - "any claim in respect of goods or materials supplied to a ship for her operation or maintenance" 20. The Plaintif......
-
The "Skaw Prince"
...The [1981] 2 Lloyd's Rep 153 (folld) Ohm Mariana ex Peony, The [1993] 2 SLR (R) 113; [1993] 2 SLR 698 (refd) Opal 3 ex Kuchino, The [1992] 2 SLR (R) 231; [1992] 2 SLR 585 (folld) Pangkalan Susu/Permina 3001, The [1977-1978] SLR (R) 105; [1975-1977] SLR 252 (folld) Saudi Prince, The [1982] 2......
- Mohamed Abdullah s/o Abdul Razak v Public Prosecutor
-
The "Ivanovo"
...Jude Benny) for the defendant/intervener. Kapitan Temkin, The [1998] 2 SLR (R) 537; [1998] 3 SLR 254 (refd) Opal 3, The; ex Kuchino [1992] 2 SLR (R) 231; [1992] 2 SLR 585 (folld) Pangkalan Susu/Permina 3001, The [1977-1978] SLR (R) 105; [1975-1977] SLR 252 (folld) High Court (Admiralty Juri......
-
Transport: A New Zealand Perspective
...also supported the right of a repairer to enforce a statutory in rem right against the sale proceeds included The "Opal 3" ex "Kuchino" [1992] 2 SLR 585 and Pan-United Ship Yard Pte Ltd v Chase Manhattan Bank (National Association) [1999] 1 SLR (R) 703. He decided Babcock was entitled to as......
-
IN PERSONAM LIABILITY, BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP AND THE ACTION IN REM
...1 H.K.L.R. 394. 18 Ibid., at 398. 19 [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 37. 20 Ibid., at 42. It is pertinent to point out that in “The Opal 3”[1992] 2 S.L.R. 585 at 590, Selvam J.C. appears to have taken the view that to satisfy the requirement of in personam liability in section 4(4) of the HCAJA, the ......
-
FULFILLING THE DUTY OF FULL AND FRANK DISCLOSURE IN ARREST OF SHIPS
...ss 3(1)(a)–3(1)(r). 18 High Court Admiralty Jurisdiction Act (Cap 123, 2001 Rev Ed) ss 4(3) and 4(4); see also The Opal 3 ex Kuchino[1992] 2 SLR(R) 231 at [10]. 19 High Court Admiralty Jurisdiction Act (Cap 123, 2001 Rev Ed) s 4(4). 20 High Court Admiralty Jurisdiction Act (Cap 123, 2001 Re......
-
Comment
...Chem Orchid[2016] 2 SLR 50 at [48]. 39 Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed. 40 The Chem Orchid [2016] 2 SLR 50 at [53]. 41 The Opal 3 ex Kuchino [1992] 2 SLR(R) 231 at [11]; The Min Rui[2016] 5 SLR 667 at [29]. 42 See Toh Kian Sing SC, Admiralty Law and Practice (LexisNexis, 3rd Ed, 2017) at p 114, w......
-
Admiralty and Shipping Law
...13 SAL Ann Rev 46 at 50–52. 84 The Min Rui [2016] 5 SLR 667 at [57] and [64]. 85 The Min Rui [2016] 5 SLR 667 at [27] and [32]. 86 [1992] 2 SLR(R) 231. 87 [1999] 2 SLR(R) 647. 88 The Min Rui [2016] 5 SLR 667 at [28]–[29]. 89 The Min Rui [2016] 5 SLR 667 at [33]. 90 The Min Rui [2016] 5 SLR ......