LITT
Try LITT free
The “Yangtze Harmony” [2026] SGHC 3
The court has residual common law power to lift a stay of admiralty in rem proceedings to allow a claimant to enter judgment in rem to enforce a foreign arbitral award, as the in rem and in personam claims do not merge.
The “Hong Chang Sheng” [2025] SGHCR 31
The court held that consent orders are contractual in nature if they reflect a consensus ad idem, and the court has no residual discretion to interfere with such orders unless there are vitiating factors under contract law.
Winson Oil Trading Pte Ltd v United Overseas Bank Ltd and another appeal [2025] SGCA 42
The lawful holder of a bill of lading acquires rights of suit under the contract of carriage by operation of law, and the subjective intention or belief of the holder regarding the bill as security is irrelevant to the acquisition of such rights.
Da Hui Shipping (Pte) Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) v An Rong Shipping Pte Ltd (in liquidation) (Societe Generale, Singapore Branch and another, non-parties) [2025] SGCA 30
A non-admiralty in personam action cannot be used to overreach into sale proceeds of vessels held in court under admiralty jurisdiction, as such proceeds are only available to claimants with judgments in rem.
Natixis, Singapore Branch v Seshadri Rajagopalan and others and other appeals [2025] SGCA 29
The court held that the judicial managers did not dispose of the vessel as the judicial sale by the foreign court was not a disposal by them, and that a statutory lien created by the issuance of a writ in rem does not constitute a security interest under the IRDA.
The “Jeil Crystal” [2024] SGHC 74
A former holder of a bill of lading who has endorsed and delivered the bill to the shipper divests itself of all rights of suit under the contract of carriage, and thus lacks standing to sue the carrier for breach of contract or duty.
The “World Dream” [2024] SGHC 56
A ship mortgage in standard statutory form, which includes 'appurtenances' and 'belongings', extends to equipment on board that is necessary for the prosecution of the vessel's adventure.
The “Sea Justice” [2024] SGHC 37
In The “Sea Justice” [2024] SGHC 37, the High Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the Assistant Registrar’s orders on security return, the dismissal of the warrant set-aside application, and the recovery of S$88,786.53 in expert witness fees.
The “Maersk Katalin” [2024] SGHC 282
A carrier is liable for misdelivery if it discharges cargo without presentation of original bills of lading, and the carrier's breach is the effective cause of the loss, even if the bank did not initially look to the bills as security.
The “VICTOR 1” [2024] SGHC 165
A demise charterparty terminates upon the judicial sale of the vessel, and the legal fiction of the sale proceeds representing the vessel does not extend to preserving contractual obligations or the status of a demise charterer for the purposes of s 4(4) HCAJA.
Natixis, Singapore Branch v Seshadri Rajagopalan and others and other matters [2024] SGHC 113
The issuance of an in rem writ in Singapore does not render a vessel 'subject to a security' within the meaning of s 100(2)(a) of the IRDA, nor does it render the claimant a creditor of the vessel owner under s 115 of the IRDA.
The “Tina I” [2024] SGHCR 12
The court declined to order the inclusion of a sanctions clause in security provided by payment into court, as it was not supported by evidence, inconsistent with the legal consequences of payment into court, and would result in inadequate security for the claimant.
The “Sea Justice” [2024] SGCA 32
The loss of security obtained in an in rem action is not a legitimate juridical advantage under the second stage of the Spiliada test where a limitation fund is already available in the appropriate forum.
Vallianz Shipbuilding & Engineering Pte Ltd v Owner of the vessel “ECO SPARK” [2023] SGHC 353
A vessel is a 'ship' within the meaning of s 2 of the HCAJA if it is designed and capable of being used in navigation, regardless of its actual current use or frequency of use.
Marchand Navigation Co v Olam Global Agri Pte Ltd and another [2023] SGHC 339
The existence of a dispute and an arbitration clause between an owner and a charterer does not prevent the owner from exercising a contractual lien under Clause 18 of the NYPE form against a sub-charterer.
Hyphen Trading Ltd v BLPL Singapore Pte Ltd and others [2023] SGHC 302
The court refused to order a sale of cargo pendente lite under O 13 r 4(1) of the Rules of Court 2021 because the claimant failed to show that the cargo was likely to diminish in value or that a sale was otherwise desirable, especially given the claimant's undertaking to bear pre
The “Ambassador” [2023] SGHC 2
A mortgagee is entitled to elect to enforce its remedies against the proceeds of sale of a vessel, and is not required to first exhaust other security provided by the defendant, provided there is no double recovery.
COSCO Shipping Specialized Carriers Co, Ltd v PT OKI Pulp & Paper Mills and others [2023] SGHC 149
A limitation action is a special proceeding where a shipowner enforces its right to limit liability, and service of the originating claim on one named defendant is sufficient to establish the court's jurisdiction.
PT Soonlee Metalindo Perkasa v Synergy Shipping Pte Ltd (Freighter Services Pte Ltd, Third Party) [2007] SGHC 121
A carrier of goods by sea has an absolute obligation to provide a seaworthy vessel at the commencement of the voyage, and this duty is not relieved by the fact that the carrier does not own the vessel.
The "Vasiliy Golovnin" [2007] SGHC 116
The arrest of a vessel in Singapore is an abuse of process if it is based on issues already resolved by a foreign court of competent jurisdiction (issue estoppel), and the failure to disclose such prior proceedings in an ex parte application for a warrant of arrest is a material
The "Asia Star" [2006] SGHC 115
A shipowner is in breach of a voyage charterparty if the vessel's cargo tanks are not cargo-worthy at the commencement of the voyage, and the shipowner fails to exercise due diligence to ensure they are fit for the carriage of the agreed cargo.
UCO Bank v Golden Shore Transportation Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 65
A party named as consignee in a bill of lading does not automatically become the lawful holder under the Bills of Lading Act if the bill was not delivered by the shipper or on its behalf, particularly where an intermediary negotiation bank is involved without proper indorsement.
Marina Offshore Pte Ltd v China Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Another [2005] SGHC 238
The court held that the plaintiff failed to comply with the warranty surveyor's recommended route, rendering the insurance policy void, and that the vessel was unseaworthy due to improper manning and lack of stability information.
Treasure Valley Group Ltd v Saputra Teddy and Another (Ultramarine Holdings Ltd, intervener) [2005] SGHC 217
The High Court dismissed the appeal in Treasure Valley Group Ltd v Saputra Teddy, upholding the arrest of the vessel Seeker I. The court applied the doctrine of approbation and reprobation, ruling that accepting benefits from a judgment precludes challenging the underlying arrest's validity.