The "Trade Fair"

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Karthigesu JA
• Judgment Date: 27 May 1994
• Neutral Citation: [1994] SGCA 82
• Date: 21 October 1994
• Subject Matter: Admiralty and Shipping,s 3(1)(f) High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123),Admiralty jurisdiction and arrest,Action in rem,Indemnity claim in respect of compensation paid under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Cap 354)
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 163 of 1993
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Liew Teck Huat (Niru & Co)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Goh Kok Leong (Ang & Pnrs)

Cur Adv Vult

The respondents commenced this admiralty action in rem against the owners of the ship or vessel Trade Fair (the appellants) on 26 November 1992 claiming an indemnity pursuant to s 18(b) of the Workmen`s Compensation Act (Cap 354) in the sum of $135,000. The admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court was invoked under s 3(1)(f) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (hereafter referred to as `the Act`). However, long before that, on 5 August 1988, the Standard Steamship Owners` Protection and Indemnity Association (Bermuda) Ltd had furnished security on behalf of the appellants, in the form of a letter of undertaking, to answer the respondents` claim. The appellants, having entered an appearance on 10 July 1993, applied on 21 July 1993 to set aside the writ of summons on the ground that the respondents` claim did not come within the in rem jurisdiction of the court. The appellants also claimed for the return of the letter of undertaking for cancellation. The appellants` application was first heard by an assistant registrar who granted the orders sought by them but on appeal by the respondents to the High Court, Mr GP Selvam JC (as he then was) who heard the appeal allowed it and set aside the orders made by the assistant registrar. The learned judicial commissioner`s judgment is reported at [1994] 1 SLR 704 , against which judgment the appellants have now appealed.

The facts which gave rise to the respondents` claim are not in dispute. They are amply stated in the judgment of the learned judicial commissioner and may be summarized as follows. The Trade Fair arrived in Singapore on or about 22 April 1988 from Shanghai carrying a cargo of bagged soybean meal loaded in the No 3 deep tank. The respondents were engaged by the appellants to discharge the cargo. Teo Kuan Joo, Lim Ley and Ku Kim (collectively referred to as `the stevedores`) who were employees of the respondents within the meaning of the Workmen`s Compensation Act entered the No 3 deep tank for the purpose of discharging the cargo. Upon entering the No 3 deep tank the stevedores were overcome with hypoxia, as a result of which they immediately collapsed and subsequently died. The respondents, as the employers of the stevedores, consequently became liable to pay compensation in respect of each of them, under the provisions of the Workmen`s Compensation Act, in the sum of $45,000, making a total of $135,000.

The respondents by their statement of claim alleged that `the death of the stevedores was caused by hypoxia, the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere in No 3 deep tank having been severely reduced by reason of microbiological activity within the cargo and/or oxidation of the cargo and/or the internal walls on No 3 deep tank.` They further alleged that `the said reduction of the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere in No 3 deep tank and the consequent death of the stevedores was caused solely by the negligence of the defendants [the appellants], their servants or agents.` Extensive particulars of the alleged negligence of the appellants, their servants or agents were given and the respondents concluded by alleging that the appellants `would have been liable in damages to the stevedores and/or their legal personal representatives and/or their dependants for the death of the stevedores.`

Although the respondents had alleged in their statement of claim that they did pay compensation in the sum of $45,000 in respect of the death of each of the stevedores pursuant of the provisions of the Workmen`s Compensation Act, the appellants contended before us that there was no proof of such payment. They contended that since the respondents` claim under s 18(b) of the Workmen`s Compensation Act was to be indemnified of such payment it was dependant on proof of payment. Accordingly, the learned judicial commissioner had erred in allowing the claim to be brought. We are not persuaded by this argument of last resort. The question before us is whether the court has the jurisdiction to entertain the appellants` claim in admiralty in rem and not whether, the court having the jurisdiction to entertain the respondents` claim in admiralty in rem, it should succeed or not.

Turning now to the jurisdiction of the court, the question is whether a claim for an indemnity under s 18(b) of the Workmen`s Compensation Act is a claim for loss of life falling within s 3(1)(f) of the Act.

Section 18(b) of the Workmen`s Compensation Act, in so far as it is relevant for present purposes, reads as follows:

Where any injury for which compensation is payable under this Act was caused under circumstances creating a legal liability in some person other than the employer to pay damages in respect thereof -

(b) if the workman has recovered compensation under this Act, the person by whom the compensation was paid, ... shall be entitled to be indemnified by the person so liable to pay damages as aforesaid.

And s 3(1)(f) of the Act...