The "Temasek Eagle"

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 14 June 1999
• Date: 14 June 1999
• Docket Number: Admiralty in Rem No 768 of 1998
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

The “Temasek Eagle”

[1999] SGHC 157

Choo Han Teck JC

Admiralty in Rem No 768 of 1998 (Registrar's Appeal No 216 of 1999)

High Court

Admiralty and Shipping–Admiralty jurisdiction and arrest–Ownership of vessels–Whether admiralty jurisdiction properly called on–Status of defendant as beneficial owner of vessel when vessel arrested–Whether burden of proof shifts–Section 4 (4) High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123, 1985 Rev Ed)

Arising from a charterparty between the plaintiff, Burong III Pte Ltd (“Burong III”), and Maritime Malaysia Sdn Bhd (“Maritime Malaysia”), the plaintiff took an action in rem against the owner of a vessel named Temasek Eagle and arrested the vessel. The defendant, Worldwide Management Resources Sdn Bhd (“Worldwide Management”), entered appearance claiming as owner of the Temasek Eagle and applied to strike out the writ and the warrant of arrest on the ground that the court's admiralty jurisdiction could not be invoked as s 4 (4) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the Act”) was not satisfied because it (and not Maritime Malaysia) was the beneficial owner of the Temasek Eagle when the vessel was arrested. The Worldwide Management alleged that it had purchased the vessel from Maritime Malaysia. The assistant registrar granted Worldwide Management's application. Burong III appealed against the assistant registrar's decision. The central issue in the appeal was whether Maritime Malaysia or Worldwide Management was the beneficial owner of the Temasek Eagle.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The proof of the beneficial ownership of the vessel for the purpose of invoking s 4 (4) of the Act was the burden of the plaintiff which he must satisfy the court that he had discharged on the balance of probabilities. That burden never shifted and stayed with the plaintiff: at [13] and [15].

(2) An equitable ownership was sufficient for the purposes of s 4 (4) of the Act: at [16].

(3) There was no evidence that Maritime Malaysia was prohibited by its contract with the vessel's mortgagees from selling its equitable interest in the vessel without the mortgagees' consent: at [17].

(4) There was ample evidence of a contract between the defendant and Maritime Malaysia for the sale and purchase of the Temasek Eagle and the passing of the property and beneficial ownership prior to the arrest of the vessel. The plaintiff had failed to satisfy the court, on a balance of probabilities, that the Temasek Eagle was still beneficially owned by Maritime Malaysia: at [18] and [20].

[Observation: Section 3 of the Act required that a claim by the plaintiff be reasonably identified under any of the categories set out from (a) to (r)of s 3 (1). Whether the claim could be proved was a matter for trial: at [22].]

Aventicum, The [1978] 1 Lloyds Rep 184 (folld)

Andres Bonifacio, The [1991] 1 SLR (R) 523; [1991] SLR 694 (refd)

I Congreso del Partido, The [1978] QB 500 (folld)

Maritime Trader, The [1981] 2 Lloyds Rep 153 (refd)

Saudi Prince, The [1982] 2 Lloyds Rep 255 (refd)

Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 116 illus (g)

High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123, 1985 Rev Ed) s 4 (4) (consd);s 3 (1)

Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed) O 18 r 19, O 92 r 4

Augustine Liew and Clares De Cruz (Haridass Ho & Partners) for the plaintiff

Perry Lim Che-How (Gurbani & Co) for the defendant.

Judgment reserved.

Choo Han Teck JC

1 The plaintiffs are a company called Burong III Pte Ltd and are suing the owners of a vessel named Temasek Eagle for the hire of one of the plaintiffs' vessels named Setia Abadi. Pursuant to this action in rem the plaintiffs arrested the Temasek Eagle. A company called Worldwide Management Resources Sdn Bhd (“Worldwide Management”) claiming as owners of the Temasek Eagle entered appearance as defendants. It was not disputed that the hire upon which the plaintiffs are suing arose from a charterparty between the plaintiffs and a company called Maritime Malaysia Sdn Bhd (“Maritime Malaysia”). The claim is for a sum of US$85,961.10.

2 Worldwide Management applied to strike out the writ and warrant of arrest. In an unusual step, their solicitors made two separate applications in chambers. The first (SIC 249 of 1999) was to set aside the writ under s 4 (4) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123), and the second, (SIC 2677 of 1999) to strike out the writ and warrant of arrest under O 18 rr 19 (a) to 19 (d) as well as O 92 r 4. The two applications were heard together...