The "Safe Neptunia"

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: L P Thean J
• Judgment Date: 29 April 1988
• Neutral Citation: [1988] SGHC 33
• Docket Number: Motion in Admiralty Suit No 283 of 1986
• Date: 29 April 1988
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1988
• Plaintiff Counsel: Govindarajalu Asokan (Rodyk & Davidson)
• Citation: [1988] SGHC 33
• Defendant Counsel: Jude Benny (Jude P Benny & Co)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Admiralty jurisdiction and arrest,Admiralty and Shipping,Whether crawler crane used for operation of vessel becomes part of vessel,Mortgagees' entitlement to possession of part of vessel despite arrest,Ownership of crane on board vessel,Possessory lien

Cur Adv Vult

This is a motion by the first intervener, Skandinaviska Enskilda Banker (South East Asia) Ltd, for, inter alia, the following declarations, namely:

(i) that a crawler known as Manitowac 4600 S5 Lift Crane, serial no 460037 (the crane), at the material time on board the vessel, `Safe Neptunia` (the vessel), was not part of the vessel;

(ii) that the second intervener, Bethlehem (Singapore) Pte Ltd, did not and does not have a possessory or any lien on the crane on board the vessel, which at that time was in the possession of the second intervener; and

(iii) that the first intervener is entitled to possession of the crane.

The contest in this motion is only between the first intervener, who is the mortgagee of the crane, and the second intervener, the shipyard, which had carried out repair and conversion works to the vessel.

The vessel is a work/accommodation barge and at the material time was owned as to 75% thereof by Consafe (Jersey) Ltd of St Helier, Jersey, Channel Islands, and as to 25% thereof by Wallenius Safe Neptunia AB of Sweden. By a demise charterparty dated 13 February 1984, the owners chartered her to Consafe AB of Gothenburg, Sweden, and Consafe Far East Pte Ltd, a company incorporated in Singapore, was appointed the managing agent of the vessel by the charterers. At all material times, on board the vessel there was and had always been a crawler crane, Manitowac 4100, which was also owned by the same owners who owned the vessel. In late 1984, Consafe Far East Pte Ltd (Consafe) acquired the crane (ie Manitowac 4600, serial no 460037) and the first intervener financed the acquisition thereof by advancing a loan of US$800,000 to Consafe, and, as security for the loan, took a mortgage of the crane. Upon the purchase of the crane, Consafe hired it to the demise charterers and in November 1984 or thereabout the crane was placed on board the vessel.

On 19 April 1985, a ship repair agreement was made between the second intervener and Consafe, as manager for the charterers, for certain repairs to be carried out to the vessel, which were necessitated by a collision between the vessel and another vessel, `Straits Hope`. Pursuant to the agreement, the repairs were carried out and an invoice for $905,800 was rendered by the second intervener. On 24 May 1985, a conversion agreement was entered into between the second intervener and Consafe, as agent for the charterers, for the conversion of the vessel to a combination/lay barge. The second intervener, without having been paid for the repair works carried out, commenced the conversion works, and in respect of the latter, further invoices amounting to a sum of $3,671,432.32 were rendered. On 2 September 1985, Consafe instructed the second intervener to stop all works on the vessel, as the owners and the charterers were in some financial difficulties. The total amount then owing to the second intervener was $44,577,232.32 which remains unpaid.

Consafe, the owner of the crane, made only two interest payments to the first intervener and no instalment of the loan was ever paid. The total amount outstanding and owing to the first intervener was $1,831,481.09 as at 30 June 1986.

On 5 June 1986, the plaintiffs, the owners of the vessel `Straits Hope`, commenced this action and by a warrant of arrest dated the same day arrested the vessel. The second intervener asserted that it had a possessory lien over the vessel and also the crane for the total sum of $4,577,232.32; the lien on the crane, however, was disputed by the first intervener who was the mortgagee thereof.

On application by the plaintiffs, an order was made on 2 November 1987 for appraisement and sale pendente lite of the vessel and all the equipment on board excluding, however, the crane. Upon subsequent application also made by the plaintiffs, an order was made on 30 March 1987 requiring the first intervener to cause the removal of the crane from the vessel and to bear initially the costs of and incidental to such removal, reserving such costs for determination at a later date upon the outcome of this motion. Accordingly, the first intervener caused the crane to be removed and it was placed in the yard of the second intervener. Then on 11 September 1987, on application by the first intervener, by consent an order was made for the sale of the crane at a price of not less than US$700,000 and the proceeds therefrom be invested on fixed deposit with a bank or finance company in Singapore to abide by the outcome of this motion. The crane, however, has not yet been sold and is presently lying in the yard of the first intervener`s agent.

Before me three issues have been raised, namely:

(i) whether the crane was part of the vessel;

(ii) whether Consafe was estopped from saying that the crane and the vessel did not come into the second intervener`s yard as one unit; and

(iii) whether any work had been carried out on the crane, and if it had, whether the second intervener had a possessory lien on the crane.

These issues involve questions of fact and law. The parties, however, have agreed that I should determine these issues on the basis of the affidavits filed.

The material facts which are not in dispute are as follows. First, the vessel is a work/accommodation barge and was used primarily to accommodate workers and served as a working platform for offshore operations. She arrived in Singapore as a cargo on board a submersible vessel and at that time she did not have the crane on board. The only crane then on board was the Manitowac 4100, and whilst this crawler crane could be removed from the vessel, it had always been considered by the shipowners and the charterers as part of the vessel. Secondly, the crane (the subject matter of this dispute) was subsequently put on board the vessel; it was not owned by the shipowners or the charterers but by Consafe which had created a valid mortgage thereon in favour of the first intervener and hired it to the charterers. Thirdly, the crane was not in any way affixed or attached to the vessel; it is a mobile crane. Fourthly, as stated by Mr Vlado Brnvicevic, the managing director of Consafe, in his affidavit affirmed on 9 September 1986 - a statement which was not challenged - a crawler crane such as the crane is not a purpose-built crane for marine work or operation. It can be used and has been effectively used for onshore work, for instance in building/construction sites. In fact, the second intervener had a crawler crane for use in its yard. Lastly, according to the specifications of the vessel, as described in a brochure (exh GWB-4), only the crawler crane, Manitowac 4100, was included as part of the vessel. It seems to me that the operations of the vessel envisaged the use of this crane, though as stated by Mr...