The "Permina 108"

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chua F A J
• Judgment Date: 26 November 1976
• Neutral Citation: [1976] SGCA 12
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 31 of 1976
• Date: 26 November 1976
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1976
• Plaintiff Counsel: Richard Stone QC and S Selvadurai (Selvadurai & Emmanuel)
• Citation: [1976] SGCA 12
• Defendant Counsel: Michael David Thomas QC and C Arul (Rodyk & Davidson)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Admiralty jurisdiction of High Court,Admiralty jurisdiction and arrest,Warrant of arrest,Action in rem,Practice and procedure of action in rem,ss 3 & 4 High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 6, 1970 Ed),Admiralty and Shipping,Motion to set aside action in rem and warrant of arrest,Non-payment of charter hire under charterparty in respect of another ship

Cur Adv Vult

This is an appeal from a judgment of Choor Singh J dated 25 August 1976 dismissing a motion taken out by the appellants, the owners of the ship or vessel Permina 108 to set aside a writ in rem and a warrant of arrest directed against their ship Permina 108.

The Permina 108 was arrested by the respondents, Martropico Compania Naviera SA, in respect of a claim, stated in the endorsement of the writ to be a claim for non-payment of the charter hire due under a charterparty dated the 1 September 1970 in respect of the vessel Ibnu which is owned by the respondents.

According to an affidavit sworn by the general manager of the agents in Singapore for the respondents it appears that as at 22 July 1976 there was due and owing by the appellants to the respondents US$7,230,711.48 by way of unpaid charter hire in respect of the vessel Ibnu which was chartered by the appellants from the respondents under a charterparty dated the 1 September 1970. It is not in dispute that the charterparty is a time-charterparty and that the charter hire is to be paid monthly. It is agreed that for the purposes of the motion the appellants are the owners of the Permina 108.

The appellants` case is that the respondents are not entitled to bring proceedings in rem against the Permina 108 because the claim asserted in relation to the charter of the Ibnu has no connection with the Permina 108, even if owned by the appellants.

The admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court is statutory and is defined by s 3(1) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 6, 1970 Ed) in terms which, so far as relevant to the present appeal, are 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 use or hire of a ship.

The mode of exercise of such admiralty jurisdiction is prescribed by s 4 of the Act, the relevant provisions of which are as follows:

(1) Subject to the provisions of s 5 of this Act the admiralty jurisdiction of the court may in all cases be invoked by an action in personam.

(4) In the case of any such claim as is mentioned in paras (d) to (q) of sub-s (1) to s 3 of this Act, being a claim in connection with a ship, where the person who would have been liable in an action in personam was, when the cause of action arose, the owner or charterer or person in possession or in control of, the ship, the admiralty jurisdiction of the court may (whether the claim gives rise to a maritime lien on the ship or not) be invoked by an action in rem against -

(a) that ship if at the time when the action is brought it is beneficially owned as respects all the shares therein by that person; or

(b) any other ship which, at the time when the action is brought, is beneficially owned as aforesaid.

The decision of this appeal turns on the construction of s 4(4).

The appellants` main contention is that on the proper construction of s 4(4) of the Act a ship, to be liable to arrest must, under cl (a), be the ship in connection with which the claim made in the action arose and which, at the time when the action is brought, is beneficially owned by the defendant to the action; or, under cl (b), any other ship which, at the time when the action is brought, is beneficially owned by the person who is the beneficial owner of the ship in connection with which the claim made in the action...