The "Simba"

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chua F A J
• Judgment Date: 30 September 1969
• Neutral Citation: [1969] SGFC 8
• Citation: [1969] SGFC 8
• Date: 30 September 1969
• Year: 1969
• Plaintiff Counsel: AP Godwin (Donaldson & Burkinshaw)
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No Y3 of 1969
• Defendant Counsel: KC O'Connor (Drew & Napier)
• Court: Federal Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 19 September 2003

At the conclusion of the hearing on 30 June 1969 we dismissed this appeal with costs, indicating that we would give our reasons at a later date. We now proceed to do so.

This was an appeal against the decision of T Kulasekaram J, dismissing a motion:

For an order that the writ of summons and all subsequent proceedings herein including the warrant of arrest be set aside with costs on the grounds following:

That the affidavit to lead the warrant of arrest is bad for non-compliance with O 75 r 5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of England as applied by preliminary r 2 of the Rules of the Supreme Court in that (a) the port to which the said vessel belongs is not named, and (b) the requirements of the said O 75 r 5(8)(a), (b) and (c) have not been complied with and/or the said affidavit discloses no facts upon which the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred upon this honourable court by s 4 of the Courts (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Ordinance, 1961, can be founded and that the said vessel `Simba` now under arrest herein be released from such arrest and that a direction to release be sent to the Sheriff of Singapore.

This motion came on for hearing on 15 January 1969 by which time the said vessel had already been released on 23 December 1968 upon the defendants furnishing satisfactory security.

The plaintiffs in this case took out a writ against the defendants on 9 December 1968 and, on the same day, applied for a warrant for the arrest of the motor vessel `Simba` .

In support of this application, the following affidavit sworn to by Mr KA O`Connor, a partner of the firm of solicitors acting on their behalf, was filed the same day:

1 I am a partner in the firm of Drew & Napier and have the conduct of this action on behalf of the plaintiffs.

(2) I am informed by Messrs Lillick, McCase, Wheat, Adams and Charles, Attorneys of San Francisco, California, United States of America, and verily believe:

(a) that the plaintiffs who are a limited company incorporated in Israel, were the charterers of and owners of cargo laden on board the motor vessel `Simba`under a charterparty in Baltime form dated 16 March 1966;

(b) that during a voyage from ports in Europe to the West Coast of the United States the said cargo sustained damage;

(c) that the plaintiffs have a claim against the said vessel in respect of such damage;

(d) the property to be arrested is the `Simba`and the claim has not been satisfied.

3 The aid and process of this honourable court are required to enforce payment of the said claim.

It was common ground that the claim in this action falls under either s 3(1)(g) or s 3(1)(h) of the Courts (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Ordinance 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) which read 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:

(g) any claim for loss of or damage to goods carried in a ship;

(h) any claim arising out of any agreement relating to the carriage of goods in a ship or to the use or hire of a ship.

It should be observed that this subsection, after listing 18 types of claims including those under paras (g)...