Jesse Remalmog & 2 Ors v Owner and/or Demise Charterer of the vessel SEVILLA KNUTSEN (IMO No. 9414632)

"After considering the evidence before me and the parties’ submissions and bearing the above principles in mind, I am prepared to accept and do find that on the available evidence, the area of damage is 1,056.88m2." — Per S Mohan J, Para 45

Case Information

• Citation: [2022] SGHC 20 (Para 0)
• Court: General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore (Para 0)
• Date: 28 January 2022 (Para 0)
• Coram: S Mohan J (Para 0)
• Case Number: Admiralty in Rem No 91 of 2017 (Assessment of Damages No 13 of 2020) (Para 0)
• Area of Law: Admiralty and Shipping — Action in rem — Claim on reference; Damages — Assessment — Damage to coral reef (Para 0)
• Counsel for the plaintiffs: Mr Leong Kah Wah (Paras 2, 20)
• Counsel for the defendant: Mr Ramachandran Raghunath Doraisamy (Paras 2, 20)
• Judgment length: The extracted material does not provide the full page count or word count, so the length is not answerable from the extraction (Para 0)

What was this Singapore admiralty damages assessment about?

This was a claim on reference brought to assess damages after a vessel struck a coral reef at Eauripik, causing environmental harm to the reef. The plaintiffs were the Chiefs of Eauripik, and the defendant was the owner and/or demise charterer of the vessel SEVILLA KNUTSEN. Liability had already been settled by agreement, so the court’s task was confined to quantifying the damage and determining the value of the damaged reef area under the applicable law. (Paras 4, 7, 9)

The judgment makes clear that the dispute was not about whether the incident occurred, nor about whether the defendant was responsible. Instead, the central controversy was evidential and valuation-based: how much of the reef was damaged, and what monetary value should be attached to that damaged area. The court framed those as the Damage Issue and the Valuation Issue, and the parties’ positions were far apart on both. (Paras 7, 8, 25)

The case is also notable because the court was applying FSM law principles in a Singapore admiralty proceeding. The judgment expressly recognised that the matter concerned tortious compensation for the people of Eauripik under FSM law, with Singapore serving as the forum because the vessel had been arrested there. That foreign-law context shaped the court’s approach to proof of damage and valuation. (Paras 9, 42, 43)

"The hearing before me concerns a claim on reference brought pursuant to O 70 rr 40 and 41 of the ROC to assess the damages due to the plaintiffs as a result of the Incident." — Per S Mohan J, Para 7

How did the vessel SEVILLA KNUTSEN damage the reef, and what was admitted?

The incident occurred on 17 April 2017, when the liquefied natural gas carrier SEVILLA KNUTSEN struck the west-facing leeward side of the reef at several locations. The judgment records that the collision caused damage to the reef and that the reef sustained ten scars. Those physical impacts formed the factual foundation for the damages assessment. (Paras 4, 18)

Liability was not contested at the assessment stage. The parties entered into an agreement under O 70 r 34 of the Rules of Court to settle liability, and pursuant to that agreement the defendant admitted 100% liability for the incident. The assessment therefore proceeded on the basis that the defendant was fully responsible for the harm, leaving only quantum in dispute. (Para 7)

The plaintiffs had earlier arrested the vessel in Singapore and pursued the claim in rem. The judgment notes that the case had a Singapore procedural connection because of that arrest, even though the underlying harm was to a reef in Eauripik. The court’s focus was therefore on translating environmental injury into compensable damage under the governing law. (Paras 7, 9)

"On 17 April 2017, the Liquefied Natural Gas carrier “SEVILLA KNUTSEN” (“Vessel”), whilst in the course of her ocean passage, struck the west-facing leeward side of the Reef at several locations, causing damage to it (the “Incident”)." — Per S Mohan J, Para 4

"Pursuant to that agreement, the defendant admitted 100% liability for the Incident." — Per S Mohan J, Para 7

What were the plaintiffs and defendant asking the court to award?

The plaintiffs’ pleaded case was that the total area of damage, including the ten direct impact scars and seven impact zones, was 5,478.46m2. On their case, the damage was not confined to the immediately visible scars; it extended further because of what they described as an avalanche effect down the reef wall. They also argued that the reef should be valued at US$1,200 per square metre. (Paras 18, 22)

The defendant took a much narrower view of the damage. Based on its expert’s evidence, it said the total damaged area was only approximately 742m2. In the alternative, it argued that compensation should not exceed US$500,000, and that the reef’s value should be capped at US$600 per square metre. On the defendant’s own alternative calculation, the value would be US$251.85 per square metre. (Paras 20, 24)

The gulf between the parties’ positions was substantial. The plaintiffs sought approximately US$6.57 million, while the defendant contended that the award should be no more than US$500,000. That divergence reflected both disagreement over the physical extent of the damage and disagreement over the proper valuation methodology for a damaged coral reef. (Paras 8, 22, 24)

"The plaintiffs’ current pleaded case is that the total area of damage, comprising the ten Direct Impact Scars and the seven Impact Zones, is 5,478.46m2." — Per S Mohan J, Para 18

"the plaintiffs claim that a valuation of US$1,200 per square metre for the Reef is appropriate" — Per S Mohan J, Para 22

"According to the defendant’s calculations and based on its expert’s evidence, the total area of the Reef that was damaged … is only approximately 742m2." — Per S Mohan J, Para 20

"Alternatively, the defendant claims that the compensation the plaintiffs are entitled to should not exceed US$500,000" — Per S Mohan J, Para 24

What legal principles governed proof of damage and uncertainty?

The court approached the assessment through the lens of reasonable certainty rather than mathematical exactness. It stated the governing principle that plaintiffs must prove damages to a reasonable certainty, but once the fact of damage is established with reasonable certainty, the amount need only be shown with as much certainty as the tort’s nature and the case’s circumstances permit. That principle was central because the harm involved ecological damage to a reef, where precision is often difficult. (Para 42)

The court drew support from both FSM and Singapore authorities. It noted that the principles stated in Kyowa Violet First Instance were not dissimilar to those applicable in Singapore, and it referred to Singapore authorities including Noor Azlin, Robertson Quay, Poh Soon Kiat, and Sakthivel Punithavathi. The overall message was that the court must do the best it can on the evidence, especially where exact proof is inherently difficult. (Paras 42, 43, 44)

At the same time, the court emphasised that it was not bound to accept expert evidence. It could decline to accept an expert’s opinion and exercise independent judgment. That point mattered because both sides relied heavily on expert reconstruction of the damage area, yet neither side’s evidence was wholly satisfactory. (Para 44)

"The plaintiffs must prove their damages to a reasonable certainty. … Once the fact of damage is established with reasonable certainty, the amount of damages need only be shown with as much certainty as the tort’s nature and the case’s circumstances permit." — Per S Mohan J, Para 42

"the court is not bound to accept expert evidence but may decline to accept expert evidence and exercise independent judgment" — Per S Mohan J, Para 44

Why did the court reject the plaintiffs’ 5,478.46m2 figure?

The court was not persuaded by the plaintiffs’ attempt to expand the damage area to 5,478.46m2. It accepted that the plaintiffs had shown direct impact scars, but it was not satisfied that the alleged secondary or avalanche damage down the reef wall had been proved with the necessary objectivity. The court’s concern was that the plaintiffs’ evidence did not reliably establish how far any secondary damage extended. (Paras 45, 46, 56)

One reason for the court’s hesitation was the nature of the aerial imagery. The court agreed with the defendant’s objection that the aerial image was not taken directly overhead. Because the image was oblique, it was not a dependable basis for precise area measurement. That undermined the plaintiffs’ attempt to use the image to support a much larger damage footprint. (Para 47)

The court also criticised the plaintiffs’ failure to conduct a follow-up detailed survey with appropriate equipment. In the court’s view, this was a case that cried out for such a survey, because it would have allowed the plaintiffs to establish the area of damage with reasonable accuracy and objectivity. The absence of that further survey left the court to infer too much from incomplete material. (Para 61)

"I am, with respect, unable to accept Professor Crane’s evidence that the area of damage is 5,478.46m2" — Per S Mohan J, Para 46

"I broadly agree with Mr Challenger’s objections. From Figure 3 … it is clear that the aerial image was not taken from directly overhead." — Per S Mohan J, Para 47

"this is a case which, in my view, cried out for a follow-up detailed survey by the plaintiffs with the appropriate equipment so that they could establish, with reasonable accuracy and objectivity, the area of damage to the Reef." — Per S Mohan J, Para 61

Why did the court not accept the defendant’s 742m2 figure either?

Although the court rejected the plaintiffs’ expansive figure, it also declined to accept the defendant’s much lower estimate of approximately 742m2. The court considered that the defendant’s analysis undercounted the damage because some obvious wall damage had been missed. In other words, the defendant’s methodology was too restrictive and did not fully capture the physical consequences of the incident. (Para 66)

The court’s reasoning shows that it was not simply choosing between two expert opinions. It independently evaluated the evidence and concluded that the true damage lay somewhere between the parties’ positions. The defendant’s figure was rejected because it did not adequately account for all the damage visible on the reef wall. (Para 66)

This middle-ground approach is consistent with the court’s broader evidential stance in the case. Where neither side’s evidence was fully reliable, the court was prepared to make its own assessment based on the available material rather than adopt either party’s number wholesale. (Paras 44, 45, 66)

"I also do not fully accept Mr Challenger’s evidence that the damage area is limited to only 742m2." — Per S Mohan J, Para 66

How did the court arrive at 1,056.88m2 as the damage area?

The court ultimately fixed the damage area at 1,056.88m2. It did so after considering the evidence, the parties’ submissions, and the applicable principles on proof of damage. The judgment indicates that the court accepted some of the defendant’s objections to the plaintiffs’ case, but not all of them, and likewise accepted that the defendant’s figure was too low. The result was an intermediate figure grounded in the evidence the court found most reliable. (Paras 45, 46, 66)

The court’s conclusion reflects a careful calibration rather than a mechanical averaging of the parties’ positions. It rejected the plaintiffs’ attempt to prove extensive avalanche damage, but it also recognised that the reef damage was broader than the defendant conceded. The court therefore settled on a figure that it considered supported by the available evidence. (Paras 45, 56, 61, 66)

That conclusion was the answer to the Damage Issue. The court expressly stated that, on the available evidence, the area of damage was 1,056.88m2. The judgment then moved on to the Valuation Issue, namely how much each square metre of damaged reef should be worth. (Paras 25, 45)

"After considering the evidence before me and the parties’ submissions and bearing the above principles in mind, I am prepared to accept and do find that on the available evidence, the area of damage is 1,056.88m2." — Per S Mohan J, Para 45

What evidence did the plaintiffs rely on, and why was it insufficient?

The plaintiffs relied on Professor Nicole L Crane, a marine biologist and faculty member of Cabrillo College, and on the OPOR Team. Their case appears to have involved drone imagery, ImageJ re-analysis, and dive observations. The plaintiffs’ theory was that the visible scars were only part of the harm and that the impact had triggered further damage down the reef wall. (Paras 27, 46, 56)

The court was not persuaded that this evidence established the claimed extent of damage with reasonable certainty. The oblique aerial image was a major weakness, because it did not provide a reliable overhead view from which accurate area measurements could be derived. The court also found that the plaintiffs had not adequately proved the alleged secondary damage, leaving the court to guess how much damage, if any, had occurred beyond the direct scars. (Paras 47, 56)

In addition, the court considered that the plaintiffs should have undertaken a more detailed follow-up survey with appropriate equipment. The absence of such a survey meant that the plaintiffs’ evidence lacked the objective precision needed to justify the very large figure they advanced. The court therefore declined to accept Professor Crane’s evidence on quantum. (Paras 46, 61)

"The plaintiffs engaged Professor Nicole L Crane (“Professor Crane”), a marine biologist and faculty member of Cabrillo College (Biology Department) in California." — Per S Mohan J, Para 27

"I agree that, in essence, the court is left to guess how much, if any, secondary damage was caused to the Reef wall at Impact Zones A and B." — Per S Mohan J, Para 56

What evidence did the defendant rely on, and why was it only partly accepted?

The defendant engaged Mr Gregory Challenger as its expert and relied on Polaris. Polaris used two methods to compute the damage area: downward-looking scaled photomosaic images and underwater length-and-width measurements using the fishbone technique. Those methods were intended to provide a more restrained estimate of the damaged area than the plaintiffs’ approach. (Paras 28, 36)

The court accepted that the defendant’s evidence had merit, particularly in resisting the plaintiffs’ expansive avalanche theory. However, it did not fully accept the defendant’s conclusion because the methodology still missed some obvious wall damage. The court therefore treated the defendant’s figure as too low, even though it was useful in identifying weaknesses in the plaintiffs’ case. (Paras 47, 66)

The judgment shows that the court was willing to scrutinise expert methodology closely. It did not simply choose the more conservative expert. Instead, it assessed whether each side’s measurements captured the actual physical damage on the reef. The defendant’s evidence helped narrow the dispute, but it did not provide the final answer. (Paras 44, 66)

"The defendant engaged Mr Gregory Challenger (“Mr Challenger”) as its expert." — Per S Mohan J, Para 28

"Polaris used two methods to compute the damage area measurements: downward-looking scaled photomosaic images, and underwater length and width measurements using what is known as the “fishbone technique”." — Per S Mohan J, Para 36

How did the court treat the valuation issue after fixing the damage area?

After determining that the damage area was 1,056.88m2, the court turned to the Valuation Issue: the monetary value of the damaged reef area. The plaintiffs had argued for US$1,200 per square metre, while the defendant argued for a cap of US$600 per square metre and, alternatively, a much lower effective valuation. The court’s task was to determine the proper value under FSM law principles. (Paras 22, 24, 25, 45)

The extracted material does not include the final valuation figure or the final monetary award. What is clear, however, is that the court had already rejected the plaintiffs’ damage area and was not prepared to accept the defendant’s area either. The valuation exercise therefore proceeded on the basis of the intermediate area figure of 1,056.88m2. (Paras 45, 66)

The judgment also indicates that the defendant relied on FSM caselaw precedent to argue for a US$600 per square metre cap. The plaintiffs, by contrast, sought a higher valuation based on their own evidence and submissions. The court’s reasoning on valuation is not fully reproduced in the extraction, so any further detail would be speculative and is therefore omitted. (Para 24)

"the defendant submits that on the basis of FSM caselaw precedent, the cap on the value of a reef in FSM is US$600 per square metre." — Per S Mohan J, Para 24

Why is this case important for admiralty and environmental damage claims?

This case is important because it shows how a Singapore court can assess environmental damage to a coral reef in an admiralty action while applying foreign law principles. The judgment expressly recognised that the dispute concerned compensation for the people of Eauripik under FSM law, even though the vessel was arrested in Singapore. That makes the case a useful illustration of transnational maritime litigation. (Para 9)

It is also significant for its treatment of proof in ecological damage cases. The court accepted that exact precision may be impossible, but it still required a reasonable evidential basis. The case therefore demonstrates that a claimant cannot simply assert a large damaged area without objective support, especially where the alleged harm extends beyond visible impact points. (Paras 42, 45, 56, 61)

Finally, the case is practically important because it shows the court’s willingness to reject both parties’ figures and arrive at an intermediate assessment based on the evidence. For practitioners, the lesson is that environmental damage claims need careful surveying, reliable imagery, and a methodology that can withstand judicial scrutiny. (Paras 44, 45, 66)

"this court deciding a claim for the people of Eauripik for tortious compensation, under FSM law, that has no connection to Singapore other than the fact that the Vessel was arrested by the plaintiffs here." — Per S Mohan J, Para 9

"this is a case which, in my view, cried out for a follow-up detailed survey by the plaintiffs with the appropriate equipment so that they could establish, with reasonable accuracy and objectivity, the area of damage to the Reef." — Per S Mohan J, Para 61

Cases Referred To

Legislation Referenced

• Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed), O 70 r 34 (Para 7)
• Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed), O 70 rr 40 and 41 (Para 7)
• Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed), O 14 r 5 (Para 15)
• Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed), O 59 (Para 15)

Source Documents

• Original Judgment — Singapore Courts
• Archived Copy (PDF) — Litt Law CDN

This article analyses [2022] SGHC 20 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.