The “Saint Christopher”

JurisdictionSingapore
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Judgment Date24 October 1968
Date24 October 1968
Docket NumberAdmiralty in Rem No 20 of 1968

[1968] SGHC 33

High Court

Tan Ah Tah FJ

Admiralty in Rem No 20 of 1968

The “Saint Christopher”

T H A Potts (Rodyk & Davidson) for the plaintiff

Ho Thian Cheh (Senior State Counsel) for the Sheriff.

Constellation,The [1966] 1 WLR 272; [1965] 2 Lloyd's Rep 538 (refd)

Sturm v Ulrich [1925] 10 F 2d 9 (refd)

Zafiro, The [1960] P 1 (refd)

Admiralty Procedure Rules rr 5, 27 (1) (consd)

Rules of the Supreme Court 1934, The, Sched B Item 115 (consd)

Companies Act 1948 (c 38) (UK) s 325

Admiralty and Shipping–Admiralty jurisdiction and arrest–Action in rem–Sale of ship by Sheriff–Whether Sheriff's commission should be charged in accordance with Item 115 Sched B The Rules of the Supreme Court 1934–Rules 5 and 27 (1) Admiralty Procedure Rules

The plaintiff claimed, as mortgagee of the vessel Saint Christopher,against the owners and other persons interested in the vessel. On its application, the Sheriff arrested the vessel and sold it by public auction. The question was how the Sheriff's commission should be charged in respect of the sale of the vessel. Counsel for the plaintiff contended that the present proceedings were neither the same nor analogous to proceedings when a writ of seizure and sale was executed by the Sheriff within the ordinary jurisdiction of the court. As such, the commission payable to the Sheriff should be charged on the scale applicable in England and not according to Item 115 of Sched B of The Rules of the Supreme Court 1934. Counsel for the Sheriff, on the other hand, argued that there was a board spectrum of similarity in both types of proceedings.

Held, ordering Sheriff's commission to be charged in accordance with Rules:

The proceedings taken by the Sheriff were analogous to proceedings when a writ of seizure and sale was executed by the Sheriff within the court's ordinary jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Sheriff's commission should be charged in accordance with Item 115 of Sched B to The Rules of the Supreme Court 1934: at [12] and [13].

Tan Ah Tah FJ

1 The plaintiffs, who claim to be the mortgagees of the vessel Saint Christopher, commenced these proceedings on 14 February 1968 against the owners of and other persons interested in the said vessel. At the instance of the plaintiffs, a warrant of arrest was issued on the same day commanding the Sheriff to arrest the said vessel. By virtue of the warrant of arrest the said vessel was duly arrested on the same day.

2 By an order made on 1 March...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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