The Rainbow Spring

JurisdictionSingapore
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
JudgeBelinda Ang Saw Ean JC
Judgment Date29 October 2002
Neutral Citation[2002] SGHC 255
Citation[2002] SGHC 255
Defendant CounselToh Kian Sing and Loh Wai Yue (Rajah & Tann)
Subject MatterWhether arrest of vessel should be set aside on ground of non-disclosure of material facts,Whether arrest obviously groundless as to amount to mala fides or crassa negligentia implying malice,Action in rem,Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed) O 70 r 4,Civil Procedure,Court's discretion in setting aside warrant of arrest on ground of material non-disclosure,Admiralty and Shipping,Whether defendant liable in personam for claim,High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123, 1985 Rev Ed) ss 3(1)(h), 4(4),Wrongful arrest,Whether s 4(4) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act satisfied,Admiralty jurisdiction and arrest,Ex parte application to set aside warrant of arrest of vessel,Full and frank disclosure
Published date19 September 2003
Plaintiff CounselMagdalene Chew (Joseph Tan Jude Benny)
Docket NumberAdmiralty in Rem No 600391 of 2001
Date29 October 2002

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

1. By a time charterparty dated 8 January 1998, Admiral Chartering Ltd ("Admiral"), a Liberian incorporated company, chartered the "RAINBOW SPRING" on an amended New York Produce Exchange Form. The present dispute stems from a May 2002 voyage charter whereby Admiral as disponent owner sub-chartered the "RAINBOW SPRING" to International Coffee and Fertilizer Trading Co ("INCOFE"). A consignment of crystalline potassium nitrate shipped on board the "RAINBOW SPRING" in June 2000 at Tocopilla, Chile for carriage to and delivery at Puerto Caldera, Costa Rica and Puerto Quetzal, Guatemala had sustained wet damage. INCOFE consequently commenced arbitration in New York against Admiral for damages.

2. On 31 October 2001, Admiral as Plaintiff commenced an action in rem against the vessel "RAINBOW SPRING". The Plaintiff’s claim is for damages for breach of time charterparty and/or for an indemnity against all losses should Admiral be found liable to INCOFE for wet damage to its cargo. The writ was served on "RAINBOW SPRING" and she was at the same time arrested in Singapore on 31 December 2001. Security was provided by West of England Ship Owners Mutual Insurance Association (Luxembourg) as P&I Club on behalf of its member, Rainbow Spring Shipping Limited Inc ("RSSL"), a Panamanian company. The vessel was released on 3 January 2002.

3. The Plaintiff’s case is that the time charter of the "RAINBOW SPRING" was from the outset made with RSSL as registered owner. The Plaintiff is entitled to proceed by way of an action in rem against the vessel because RSSL is the person who would be liable on the claim in an action in personam, and because RSSL is the owner of the vessel, both when the cause of action arose and when the action is brought.

4. RSSL as Defendant entered an appearance and on 14 January 2002 applied to set aside the writ of summons and warrant of arrest. RSSL’s contention is that the in personam requirement of s4(4) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (cap 123) is not satisfied. RSSL was not a party to the time charter of the "RAINBOW SPRING". The contracting parties were the Plaintiff and Oriental Shipway Inc ("Oriental"). An alternative ground put forward to set aside the warrant of arrest is non-disclosure of material facts.

5. The Assistant Registrar, who heard the application on 25 March 2002, declined to set aside the in rem writ. However, the warrant of arrest was set aside on the ground of non-disclosure of material facts. The Assistant Registrar also ordered damages for wrongful arrest to be assessed.

6. Both parties appealed against her decision. Further affidavits were filed after the hearing before the Assistant Registrar. All in all, a total of 13 affidavits were filed before and at the appeal stage. Within the affidavits the opposing contentions of the parties are found.

The Defendant’s Appeal

(i) The jurisdictional issue - In personam test in s4(4) of the Act

7. It is common ground that the claim falls within s3(1)(h) of the Act. It is also common ground that the court only has jurisdiction to entertain an action in rem if the Plaintiff satisfies s4(4) of the Act.

8. It is not in dispute that the burden is on the Plaintiff to establish that RSSL is the likely person to be liable in personam on the claim. As to the standard of proof, Selvam JC (as he then was) in The "Opal 3" [1992] 2 SLR 585 stated that in applying the in personam test in s4(4) of the Act, all that is needed is an arguable case. See The "St Elefterio" [1957] 1 Lloyd’s Law Rep 283 and The "Wigwam" [1982-1983] SLR 188. Justice Chua’s decision in The "Wigwam" was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. (See unreported decision dated 14 September 1984 in Civil Appeal no. 89 of 1982). Admiral has only to show that it has an arguable case, even though it may have a difficult case in fact or law. If the Plaintiff discharges the burden, the action would proceed to trial.

9. The sole question, which I have to consider, is whether it is arguable that RSSL would be liable in personam. If the plaintiff’s case on jurisdiction is plainly unarguable in that it is bound to fail, the in rem writ would be set aside. The present case is no different from the rest where the substance of the underlying claim is factually inseparable from the basis of jurisdiction.

10. Counsel for the Defendant, Mr. Toh Kian Sing, urged the court to adopt the robust approach taken in The "AA V" [2001] 1 SLR 207 where 15 affidavits were filed. Judith Prakash J said:

"….if the evidence before me convincingly established that the defendants were not party to those contracts then I would have to hold at this early stage that the admiralty jurisdiction of the court had not been properly invoked." [p218]

11. On the first page of the charterparty, Oriental is named as ‘Owners" of the "RAINBOW SPRING". The "owning company" is stated to be Oriental in the Description Clause (Clause...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • The 'Rainbow Spring'
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 29 July 2003
  • The "Acrux"
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 7 September 2004
    ...... (folld) People's Park Development Pte Ltd v Tru-Mix Concrete (Pte) Ltd [1981-1982] SLR (R) 242; [1980-1981] SLR 223 (refd) Rainbow Spring, The [2003] 3 SLR (R) 362; [2003] 3 SLR 362 (folld) St Elefterio, The [1957] P 179 (folld) High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) ......
  • The "Eagle Prestige"
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 23 March 2010
    ...decisions of The Thorlina [1985-1986] SLR(R) 258, The Lok Mashewari, The AA V [1999] 3 SLR(R) 664 (“The AA V”) and The Rainbow Spring [2003] 2 SLR(R) 117 (“The Rainbow Spring (HC)”) and The Rainbow Spring (CA) reported in [2003] 3 SLR(R) 362 was that the plaintiff should have sued someone e......
  • The "Vasiliy Golovnin"
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 31 July 2007
    ......In The “Rainbow Spring” [2003] 3 SLR 362 at 376, Judith Prakash J, who delivered the judgment of the Court of Appeal, noted that as the arrest of a vessel is a ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT