The ‘Oriental Baltic’
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Tan Lee Meng J |
Judgment Date | 30 March 2011 |
Neutral Citation | [2011] SGHC 75 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Goh Wing Sun (W S Goh & Co) |
Date | 30 March 2011 |
Hearing Date | 01 February 2011 |
Docket Number | Admiralty in Rem No 163 of 2010 (Summons No 5654 of 2010) |
Published date | 06 April 2011 |
Citation | [2011] SGHC 75 |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Year | 2011 |
The plaintiff, United Bunkering & Trading (Asia) Pte Ltd (“UBT”), applied for leave under s 299 of the Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) (the “Act”) to continue with its
In November 2009, PT Sarana Kelola Investa, which had instituted Admiralty in Rem No 328 of 2009 (“ADM 328”) against, OML, arrested the Vessel in Singapore.
UBT, which had then not instituted any action against OML, filed a caveat against the release of the Vessel on 25 May 2010.
On 23 July 2010, PMP, which had instituted Admiralty in Rem No 92 of 2010 (“ADM 92”) against OML, was given leave to intervene in ADM 328.
On 7 September 2010, OML’s directors resolved to wind up the company as it could not continue with its business because of its liabilities. The winding up of OML commenced on 8 September 2010 at around 10.18 am. Mr Farooq Ahmad Mann and Mr Ewe Pang Kooi of M/s Ewe Loke & Partners were appointed as the company’s provisional liquidators.
After the liquidation of OML commenced, UBT instituted its
On 15 October 2010, the Vessel was sold by the Sheriff and the proceeds of sale, which amounted to $403,000, were paid into court.
On 25 October 2010, PMP obtained judgment in ADM 92. On 26 November 2010, it applied for the determination of priorities and payment out of the proceeds of sale of the Vessel.
On 1 February 2011, UBT’s application for leave to continue with its
Section 299(2) of the Act, which concerns legal proceedings where the winding up of a company has commenced, provides:
After the commencement of the winding up no action or proceeding shall be proceeded with or commenced against the company except by leave of the Court and subject to such terms as the Court imposes.
Obviously UBT wanted leave to continue with its action in order to obtain judgment and stake a claim for a share of the proceeds of sale of the Vessel. As UBT’s claim potentially competed with that of PMP, the latter intervened in the present proceedings and strenuously argued that UBT’s application for leave should be rejected.
Whether leave to continue with admiralty
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
The ‘Turtle Bay’
...Marine Banking Co v Dora [No 2] [1977] 1 FC 603 (folld) Jarvis Brake, The [1976] 2 Lloyd's Rep 320 (refd) Oriental Baltic, The [2011] 3 SLR 487 (refd) Readhead v Admiralty Marshal, Western Australia District Registry (1998) 87 FCR 229 (folld) Silia, The [1981] 2 Lloyd's Rep 534 (folld) Trem......
-
The "Turtle Bay"
...none were identified and explained in the Bank’s affidavits. The principles in In re Aro [1980] Ch 196 followed in The Oriental Baltic [2011] 3 SLR 487, The Hull 308 [1991] 2 SLR(R) 643 and The Convenience Container [2007] 4 HKLRD 575 that deal with the commencement of in rem proceedings ei......
-
Insolvency Law
...failed to avail itself of such an opportunity. Leave to continue proceedings against company in liquidation 16.39 In The Oriental Baltic[2011] 3 SLR 487, the plaintiff commenced an admiralty in rem action against a company which was the owner of the vessel, one day after the company's direc......
-
Admiralty, Shipping and Aviation Law
...bidder for its expenses incurred in relation to its bid would set an altogether wrong precedent: The Sahand at [84]. The Oriental Baltic [2011] 3 SLR 487 (The Oriental Baltic) 2.15 This decision raises a short but potentially important point in light of the difficult times faced by the ship......