LITT
Try LITT free
The "Teng He" [2000] SGHC 51
The court held that the defendants were 60% to blame for the collision due to negligent navigation in restricted visibility and failure to heed warnings.
Hyundai Engineering and Construction Co Ltd v Sembawang Kimtrans (S) Pte Ltd [2000] SGHC 282
The High Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal an arbitration award regarding barge damage and charter hire. It held that the arbitrator's interpretation was not 'obviously wrong,' reinforcing the high threshold for judicial intervention in arbitration under the Arbitration Act.
AS Nordlandsbanken and Another v Nederkoorn [2000] SGHC 272
In AS Nordlandsbanken v Nederkoorn [2000] SGHC 272, the court awarded the plaintiffs $650,928.35 in damages for charterparty repudiation. The ruling emphasizes the duty to mitigate, rejecting speculative spot market earnings in favor of objective market rates for vessel valuation.
Hyosung (HK) Ltd v Owners of the Ship or Vessel `Hilal I` [2000] SGHC 268
An error in the date of a charterparty referred to in a bill of lading is a typographical error that does not invalidate the incorporation of an arbitration clause, provided there is sufficient identification of the document.
The "Ivanovo" [2000] SGHC 22
A ship's certificate of registration is prima facie evidence of ownership, but it is not conclusive and can be rebutted by evidence showing that the registered owner is not the beneficial owner.
The "Epic"
A lien clause in a head time charter is not incorporated into a bill of lading where the terms of the time charter are inapposite to the voyage, and the bill of lading is governed by the terms of a spot charter.
AS FORTUNA OPCO B.V. & Anor v SEA CONSORTIUM PRIVATE LIMITED & 3 Ors
In an uncontested limitation action, the shipowner should pay the claimants' costs for establishing the right to limit liability and the size of the fund, but each party should bear its own costs for investigative work regarding facts required to break limitation.
Standard Chartered Bank (Singapore) Ltd v Maersk Tankers Singapore Pte Ltd (Winson Oil Trading Pte Ltd, intervener) [2022] SGHC 242
The Singapore High Court allowed Maersk Tankers' appeal, granting unconditional leave to defend against Standard Chartered's claim. The court ruled that triable issues exist regarding whether the bank suffered recoverable loss from the alleged misdelivery, given the financing structure.
The “Mount Apo” and the “Hanjin Ras Laffan” [2019] SGHC 57
Analysis of [2019] SGHC 57, a decision of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 2019-03-08.
THE "MIN RUI" [2016] SGHC 183
In The Min Rui [2016] SGHC 183, the High Court ruled that beneficial ownership of a vessel passes to the buyer upon completion of delivery formalities. The court set aside the vessel's arrest, confirming that the Protocol of Delivery and Acceptance marks the shift of proprietary interests.
The "Vinalines Pioneer"
The court held that the externality criterion (that damage must be sustained by a person or property external to the ship) is a necessary requirement for a claim to qualify as 'damage done by a ship' under s 3(1)(d) of the HCAJA.
The "Star Quest" and others [2016] SGHC 100
The Singapore High Court dismissed appeals in The Star Quest [2016] SGHC 100, affirming the grant of unconditional leave to defend in bunker delivery disputes. The court ruled that evidence of past acquiescence and apparent authority created triable issues, preventing summary judgment.
The "Chem Orchid" [2015] SGHC 50
Analysis of [2015] SGHC 50, a decision of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 2015-02-18.
The "Xin Chang Shu" [2015] SGHC 308
Analysis of [2015] SGHC 308, a decision of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 2015-12-04.
The “Sea Justice” [2023] SGHCR 24
Analysis of [2023] SGHCR 24, a decision of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 2023-12-29.
Bumi Jaya Salvage & Engineering Sdn Bhd v Brave Worth Shipping Co Ltd [2023] SGHCR 21
In Bumi Jaya Salvage & Engineering Sdn Bhd v Brave Worth Shipping Co Ltd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Admiralty and Shipping — Wreck removal, Civil Procedure — Judgments and orders.
The "Vinalines Pioneer" [2015] SGHC 278
Analysis of [2015] SGHC 278, a decision of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 2015-10-26.
The "Bunga Melati 5" [2015] SGHC 190
In Bunga Melati 5 [2015] SGHC 190, the High Court ruled against the plaintiff, finding insufficient evidence to establish agency by estoppel. The court strictly applied the 'reasonable efforts' requirement for hearsay admissibility under the Evidence Act, rejecting the evidence due to lack of dilige
The "URSUS" and other matters [2015] SGHCR 7
Analysis of [2015] SGHCR 7, a decision of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 2015-04-06.
The "Xin Chang Shu" [2015] SGHCR 17
Analysis of [2015] SGHCR 17, a decision of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 2015-08-11.
The "Vinalines Pioneer" [2015] SGHCR 1
Analysis of [2015] SGHCR 1, a decision of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 2014-12-12.
The "Dolphina"
A party may be liable for unlawful means conspiracy if it combines with others to commit an unlawful act with the intention of injuring the plaintiff, even if the party's participation is by omission in furtherance of a common design.
The "Sea Urchin" [2014] SGHC 24
In The "Sea Urchin" [2014] SGHC 24, the Singapore High Court dismissed an application for a direct private sale of an arrested vessel pendente lite, ruling that the applicant failed to prove that a standard public auction would erode the vessel's value or that cargo-related costs were exceptional.
Paragon Shipping Pte Ltd v Freight Connect (S) Pte Ltd [2014] SGHC 165
In Paragon Shipping Pte Ltd v Freight Connect (S) Pte Ltd, the High Court of the Republic of Singapore addressed issues of Admiralty and Shipping — Carriage of Goods by Sea, Contract — Discharge.