The "Wigwam"

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Judgment Date: 19 November 1982
• Date: 19 November 1982
• Docket Number: Motion in Admiralty in Rem No 798

[1982] SGHC 36

High Court

F A Chua J

Motion in Admiralty in Rem No 798 of 1980

The “Wigwam”

Loh Boon Huat (Godwin & Co) for the plaintiff

P Selvadurai (Rodyk & Davidson) for the defendant.

St Elefterio, The [1957] P 179; [1957] 1 Lloyd's Rep 283 (folld)

High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 6, 1970 Rev Ed) ss 3 (1) (l), 3 (1) (m) (consd); ss 4 (4)

Administration of Justice Act 1956 (c 46) (UK) s 3 (4)

Admiralty and Shipping–Admiralty jurisdiction and arrest–Action in rem–Requirement of in personam liability–Whether there is a need to show cause of action substantial in law–Sections 3 (1) (l) and 3 (1) (m)High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 6, 1970 Rev Ed)

The plaintiff sued the defendant shipowner for $1,513,671.72 in respect of goods and materials supplied to the defendant's vessels Wigwam and Wabasha between 17 May 1980 and 30 June 1981. The Wigwam was arrested and on 14 July 1981 the defendants entered conditional appearance. The defendant sought to set aside the writ in rem and the warrant of arrest on the ground that it was not the party liable to the plaintiff in personam, as required by s 4 (4) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 6, 1970 Rev Ed) (“the Act”).

Held, dismissing the defendants' motion:

(1) The plaintiffs claimed under ss 3 (1) (l) and 3 (1) (m)of the Act. Before a plaintiff could proceed in rem in respect of a claim under s 3 (1) (l)or (m), he need not prove at the outset that he had a substantial cause of action in law: at [12].

(2) There was conflicting evidence and a number of difficult points of law raised in this case. The conflicting evidence could only be resolved after a full hearing and as such, the plaintiff was entitled to bring the action and to have it tried. Whether or not the plaintiff's claim would eventually turn out to be a good one, it was entitled to assert that claim by proceeding in rem: at [14].

F A Chua J

1 The plaintiffs are shipping agents and managers and operators carrying on business in the port of Singapore. They took out a writ in rem against the owners of the ship or vessel Wigwam claiming the sum of $1,513,671.72 for goods and materials supplied to the defendants' vessels Wigwam and Wabasha for their operation and maintenance during the period the two vessels were in Singapore between 17 May 1980 and 30 June 1981, and for disbursements incurred on account of the said vessels at the request and/or to the order of the defendants, their servants or agents, and agency fees. The said two vessels are oil storage barges with no power of their own and could only be towed.

2 The Wigwam was arrested on the application of the plaintiffs and on 14 July 1981 the owners of the Wigwam, PT Krakatau Steel, an Indonesian company in Jakarta (the defendants), entered conditional appearance.

3 On 28 July 1981, the defendants filed a motion to set aside the writ in rem and the warrant of arrest directed against their vessel the Wigwam.

4 The short facts as deposed to in the affidavits filed on behalf of the defendants are these. In November 1979 the...