Case Details
- Citation: [2026] SGHCR 2
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2026-02-09
- Judges: Samuel Chan AR
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Berard, Corey Mathew
- Defendant/Respondent: Tidewater Offshore Operations Pte Ltd
- Legal Areas: Civil Procedure — Striking Out ; Limitation Of Actions — When Time Begins To Run
- Statutes Referenced: Limitation Act 1959, Arbitration Act, Arbitration Act 2001, English Limitation Act, International Arbitration Act, International Arbitration Act 1994, International Arbitration Act, Interpretation Act
- Cases Cited: [2015] SGHC 52, [2024] SGHC 149, [2024] SGHCR 1, [2026] SGHCR 2
- Judgment Length: 32 pages, 9,289 words
Summary
This case involves a personal injury claim brought by Mr. Corey Mathew Berard, a U.S. citizen employed as a supervisor on a vessel owned by the defendant, Tidewater Offshore Operations Pte Ltd. Mr. Berard suffered injuries in an incident on the vessel in April 2019. He initially filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in 2022, but his claims against Tidewater were dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Mr. Berard then filed a claim in the Singapore High Court in 2025, which Tidewater sought to strike out as time-barred under the Limitation Act. The court ultimately allowed Tidewater's application, finding that Mr. Berard's claims were time-barred as he possessed the requisite knowledge to bring a claim by the time he filed the U.S. lawsuit in 2022 at the latest.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
In April 2019, Mr. Corey Mathew Berard, a U.S. citizen, was employed by Delmar Systems Inc. as a superintendent for offshore operations and was stationed on board the vessel M/V Pacific Dolphin ("the Vessel") as a supervisor/swing coordinator of the Vessel's anchor handling operations. The Vessel was owned by the defendant, Tidewater Offshore Operations Pte Ltd (formerly known as Swire Pacific Offshore Operations Pte Ltd).
On or around 11 April 2019, an incident occurred on board the Vessel where a polyester sling connecting a wire to the Vessel's tail rope failed under tension, causing the tail rope to recoil and strike Mr. Berard across the back of his legs. The impact caused Mr. Berard to fall approximately 20 to 25 feet down an unguarded chain locker, resulting in several injuries. Mr. Berard claims that his medical treatment for these injuries is still ongoing.
On 9 March 2022, Mr. Berard's attorneys in the U.S. commenced legal proceedings in the U.S. District Court ("the U.S. Suit") in relation to the personal injuries he suffered from the incident. The U.S. Suit was commenced against several parties, including "Swire Pacific Offshore" and the Vessel in rem. On 4 May 2022, Tidewater filed a Motion to Dismiss in the U.S. Suit, identifying itself by its full legal name at the time - Swire Pacific Offshore Operations (Pte) Ltd - and providing a declaration that it was the registered owner of the Vessel.
On 3 May 2023, the U.S. District Court dismissed without prejudice Mr. Berard's claims against Tidewater in the U.S. Suit on the basis that the U.S. District Court lacked personal jurisdiction over Tidewater, "a Singapore corporation with no specifically alleged systematic ties to Louisiana". The U.S. Suit then proceeded on the merits against the other defendants, but Mr. Berard's claims were ultimately dismissed on 8 July 2025.
On 11 April 2025, shortly before the decision of the U.S. District Court to dismiss Mr. Berard's claims in the U.S. Suit, Mr. Berard commenced Originating Claim No. 285 of 2025 ("OC 285") in the Singapore High Court. Tidewater then brought the present application, Summons No. 2445 of 2025 ("SUM 2445"), to strike out OC 285 on the basis that it was time-barred.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The primary issue before the court was whether Mr. Berard's claims in OC 285 were time-barred under section 24A(2) of the Limitation Act 1959. This required a determination of when Mr. Berard first possessed the knowledge required for bringing his claim for his injuries.
Tidewater argued that Mr. Berard's claims were time-barred as he possessed the requisite knowledge to bring a claim on the date of the accident (11 April 2019) or, at the latest, before 9 March 2022 when he commenced the U.S. Suit. Mr. Berard, on the other hand, contended that he did not acquire the requisite knowledge until 24 March 2023, when a key document (the Master Time Charter Agreement) was disclosed in the U.S. Suit, or alternatively until 4 May 2022 when Tidewater first identified itself by its full legal name.
The court also had to consider whether, even if section 24A(2) of the Limitation Act applied, Mr. Berard's claim was not time-barred because proceedings were commenced in a competent court (the U.S. District Court) prior to the expiry of the limitation period.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court began by setting out the relevant legal principles governing striking out applications under Order 9 Rule 16(1) of the Rules of Court 2021. The court emphasized that the power to strike out should be "very sparingly exercised" and only in "plain and obvious cases" where the claim is "obviously unsustainable" and "impossible, not just improbable, for the claim to succeed".
Turning to the primary issue of whether Mr. Berard's claims were time-barred, the court examined the requirements of section 24A(2) of the Limitation Act. This provision requires a claimant to bring an action within 3 years of the date on which the claimant first had the knowledge required for bringing an action for damages in respect of the relevant damage.
The court considered the evidence and found that Mr. Berard possessed the requisite knowledge to bring a claim by the time he commenced the U.S. Suit on 9 March 2022 at the latest. The court rejected Mr. Berard's arguments that he only acquired the necessary knowledge on 24 March 2023 or 4 May 2022, finding that the key facts underlying his claim were known to him much earlier.
The court also rejected Mr. Berard's argument that the commencement of the U.S. Suit stopped time from running under section 24A(2), as the U.S. District Court ultimately dismissed his claims against Tidewater for lack of personal jurisdiction.
What Was the Outcome?
The court allowed Tidewater's application and struck out Mr. Berard's claims in OC 285, finding that they were time-barred under section 24A(2) of the Limitation Act. The court held that Mr. Berard possessed the requisite knowledge to bring his claim by the time he commenced the U.S. Suit on 9 March 2022 at the latest, but he failed to commence proceedings in Singapore within the applicable 3-year limitation period.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case provides important guidance on the application of the limitation period under section 24A(2) of the Limitation Act, particularly in the context of personal injury claims. The court's analysis on when a claimant is deemed to have the "knowledge required for bringing an action" is instructive and reinforces the principle that the limitation period will not be extended merely because a claimant is unaware of the identity of the correct defendant.
The case also highlights the significance of commencing proceedings in the appropriate jurisdiction within the applicable limitation period, even if a claimant has already initiated legal action in another jurisdiction. The court's finding that the commencement of the U.S. Suit did not stop time from running under section 24A(2) underscores the importance of carefully considering the limitation period and the appropriate forum when pursuing cross-border claims.
For legal practitioners, this judgment serves as a reminder to closely examine the limitation period and the knowledge of the claimant when advising on the viability of potential claims. It also emphasizes the need to carefully strategize the commencement of proceedings, particularly in cases involving multiple jurisdictions, to ensure that claims are not inadvertently time-barred.
Legislation Referenced
- Limitation Act 1959
- Arbitration Act
- Arbitration Act 2001
- English Limitation Act
- International Arbitration Act
- International Arbitration Act 1994
- International Arbitration Act
- Interpretation Act
Cases Cited
- [2015] SGHC 52
- [2024] SGHC 149
- [2024] SGHCR 1
- [2026] SGHCR 2
Source Documents
This article analyses [2026] SGHCR 2 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.