The "Vinalines Pioneer"
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Judge | Belinda Ang Saw Ean J |
Judgment Date | 26 October 2015 |
Neutral Citation | [2015] SGHC 278 |
Citation | [2015] SGHC 278 |
Defendant Counsel | Philip Tay (Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP) |
Published date | 03 November 2015 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Vivian Ang and Ho Pey Yann (Allen & Gledhill LLP) |
Hearing Date | 07 April 2015,06 March 2015,02 April 2015,20 January 2015,13 July 2015,10 March 2015,27 July 2015,30 September 2015 |
Date | 26 October 2015 |
Docket Number | ADM No 163 of 2013 (Registrar’s Appeal No 402 of 2014) |
Subject Matter | Admiralty and Shipping,Admiralty Jurisdiction and Arrest,Meaning of "damage done by a ship" under s 3(1)(d) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123, 2001 Rev Ed) |
The plaintiff, Hung Dao Container Joint Stock Company (“Hung Dao”), is a company incorporated in Vietnam. On 4 June 2013, Hung Dao commenced
This is the defendant’s appeal in Registrar’s Appeal No 402 of 2014 (“RA 402”) which was filed in the wake of the Assistant Registrar’s decision in
The facts and arguments are comprehensively stated in the AR’s decision and it is only necessary to give a short summary of them in the course of this judgment. For the purpose of this appeal, the defendant accepted that the contract to lease the bulk of the containers was between Hung Dao and the defendant.
There are three main issues to be resolved in RA 402. The first is the jurisdictional issue, namely, whether Hung Dao’s claim has the legal character described in s 3(1)(
The jurisdictional issue in RA 402 is centred on whether Hung Dao’s claim has the legal character described in s 3(1)(
Counsel for the defendant, Mr Philip Tay (“Mr Tay”), contended that damage done by a ship in s 3(1)(
In my judgment, the cases show that to be “damage done by a ship” and thus to qualify as giving rise to a maritime lien three criteria must be satisfied: 1. the damage must be caused by something done by those engaged in the navigation or management of the ship in a physical sense; 2. the ship must be the actual or noxious instrument by which the damage is done; and 3. the damage must be sustained by a person or property external to the ship.
In response, Ms Ang contended that
The number of cases cited in argument was not entirely in harmony on Clarke J’s externality criterion. Apart from the cases cited to me, I have looked at, for myself, a number of authorities in a case of this kind. In my view, the weight of authority favours the statement of principle that there is no jurisdiction
It is necessary to approach the arguments advanced before me with the following observations in mind. The words “damage done by a ship” were first taken from s 7 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict, c 10) (“the 1861 Act”) which reads:
The High Court of Admiralty shall have jurisdiction over any Claim for Damage done by any Ship.
The same phraseology was repeated in later legislation and then in s 1(1)(
Historically, an action
Professor D C Jackson,
Plainly, it cannot be inferred from the court’s statutory jurisdiction
I digress to briefly state the legislative history of Singapore’s admiralty jurisdiction. Notably, the 1861 Act was applicable in Singapore prior to 15 January 1962. A V Winslow J in
8 [T]he admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court in Singapore arose by virtue of s 17(c) of the Courts Ordinance (Cap 3) which provided it with the jurisdiction and authority of a Colonial Court of Admiralty conferred upon it by the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act 1890. That jurisdiction and that authority still exist by virtue of s 8(2) of the [Courts (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Ordinance 1961].
9 By virtue of ss 23 and 24 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 the High Court in Singapore was invested with the same jurisdiction as was vested in it by any written law immediately prior to Malaysia Day and such jurisdiction includes the jurisdiction and authority in relation to admiralty matters conferred on the High Court of Justice in England under the Administration of Justice Act 1956 …
Therefore, prior to 15 January 1962, the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court in Singapore was limited to the admiralty jurisdiction which the High Court in England had in 1890 with the enactment of the Colonial Courts Admiralty Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c 27). The jurisdiction of the High Court of Singapore over claims for damage was to be found: (a) in s 6 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1840 (3 & 4 Vict. c 65) (“the 1840 Act”) where the court’s jurisdiction
The Courts (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Ordinance 1961 (“the Ordinance”) was renamed to the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act pursuant...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
FULFILLING THE DUTY OF FULL AND FRANK DISCLOSURE IN ARREST OF SHIPS
...criterion for claims for damage done by ship as set out in The Rama[1996] 2 Lloyd's Rep 281 and adopted locally in The Vinalines Pioneer[2016] 1 SLR 448. 43 High Court Admiralty Jurisdiction Act (Cap 123, 2001 Rev Ed) s 3(1)(l); a contract with no references to a particular ship for the use......
-
Admiralty, Shipping and Aviation Law
...act on Sejin's part which could be capable of representing redelivery of the vessel: The Chem Orchid at [110]. The Vinalines Pioneer [2016] 1 SLR 448 2.28 The High Court's decision in The Vinalines Pioneer[2016] 1 SLR 448 (‘The Vinalines Pioneer’) arose out of a claim for damage to and/or l......