Case Details
- Citation: [2015] SGHC 248
- Title: Likpin International Ltd v Swiber Holdings Ltd and another
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date of Decision: 01 October 2015
- Judge: Steven Chong J
- Coram: Steven Chong J
- Case Number: Admiralty in Personam No 113 of 2015 (Registrar's Appeal No 239 of 2015)
- Tribunal/Proceeding: High Court (appeal from Assistant Registrar)
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Likpin International Ltd
- Defendants/Respondents: Swiber Holdings Ltd (1st defendant) and Swiber Offshore Construction Pte Ltd (2nd defendant)
- Counsel for Plaintiff: Tan Hin Wa, Jason (Asia Ascent Law Corporation)
- Counsel for 1st and 2nd Defendants: Jimmy Yim SC, Arvindran s/o Manoosegaran and Mahesh Rai (Drew & Napier LLC)
- Legal Area: Civil Procedure — Striking Out
- Procedural Posture: Appeal against the assistant registrar’s dismissal of a striking out application (SUM 3225/2015)
- Admiralty Jurisdiction: Claim brought in admiralty in personam
- Key Substantive Context: Charterparty-related dispute; settlement agreement; subsequent “protective” admiralty writ
- Appeal to Court of Appeal: Appeal dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 25 July 2016 (see [2016] SGCA 48)
- Judgment Length: 20 pages, 11,461 words
Summary
Likpin International Ltd v Swiber Holdings Ltd and another concerned a striking out application in an admiralty in personam action arising from vessel chartering arrangements for a subsea construction project in Vietnam. The plaintiff, Likpin, had chartered a pipe-laying vessel under a charterparty (the “Concorde charterparty”) with the 2nd defendant, Swiber Offshore Construction Pte Ltd. After disputes and an arbitration for non-payment of charter hire, the parties resolved their differences through a settlement agreement dated 24 March 2015. Despite that settlement, Likpin later issued a “protective” admiralty in personam writ against the 1st defendant, Swiber Holdings Ltd, alleging breach of a separate procurement/charter agreement (the “Procurement Agreement”) and seeking damages for breach of an agreement to procure the supply and/or mobilisation of a vessel (the “Swiber Conquest”), as well as damages for procuring or inducing breaches and/or interfering with the agreement.
The defendants applied to strike out the plaintiff’s claim. Their arguments were twofold: (i) as against the 1st defendant, there was never any concluded Procurement Agreement, and in the alternative, any such agreement was superseded by the earlier Concorde charterparty; and (ii) as against the 2nd defendant, the matters complained of were fully and finally compromised by the Settlement Agreement. The High Court (Steven Chong J) addressed a preliminary procedural issue—whether the court on appeal could take cognisance of the plaintiff’s statement of claim filed after the assistant registrar’s hearing—and then proceeded to evaluate the viability of the claims endorsed on the writ for the purposes of striking out.
Ultimately, the court rejected the plaintiff’s procedural objection and proceeded to consider the pleadings and the endorsed causes of action. The decision illustrates the court’s approach to striking out in admiralty proceedings, the importance of properly endorsed causes of action in the writ, and how settlement agreements may affect subsequent claims between related parties in the context of charterparty and vessel procurement arrangements.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The plaintiff, Likpin International Ltd, together with a consortium member, was awarded a contract by Vietsovpetro to perform a subsea construction project at the Nam Rong and Doi Moi oilfields in Vietnam (the “VSP project”). The project required the use of a pipe-laying vessel. To meet this requirement, Likpin entered negotiations with the defendants to charter a suitable vessel. At all material times, the plaintiff sought to charter only one vessel for the VSP project.
Two pipe-laying vessels owned by the 2nd defendant were identified for the plaintiff’s chartering requirements. On 29 May 2009, a charterparty was entered into between Likpin and the 2nd defendant for one of those vessels, referred to as the “Concorde charterparty”. The charterparty was performed, but disputes later arose between the parties. Pursuant to an arbitration clause in the Concorde charterparty, the 2nd defendant commenced arbitration against Likpin for non-payment of charter hire. Likpin responded by bringing a counterclaim for damages for breach of contract against the 2nd defendant.
For reasons not relevant to the present application, the parties resolved their disputes and entered into a settlement agreement dated 24 March 2015 (the “Settlement Agreement”). The defendants believed that the settlement brought the dispute to an end. However, during routine due diligence, the defendants’ banker discovered that Likpin had issued a “protective” admiralty in personam writ on 15 May 2015 against the 1st defendant for breach of another contract described as the Procurement Agreement for the charter of a pipe-laying vessel for the VSP project. The Procurement Agreement was alleged to have predated the Concorde charterparty.
Likpin’s unliquidated claim was estimated at $10,700,000. The claim against the 2nd defendant was framed as a tort claim for procuring the 1st defendant’s breach of contract. The defendants entered appearance gratis and applied to strike out the claim (SUM 3225/2015). The assistant registrar dismissed the striking out application, and the defendants appealed to the High Court before Steven Chong J.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The first key issue concerned the court’s ability, on appeal from the assistant registrar, to take cognisance of the plaintiff’s statement of claim filed after the striking out application had been heard below. The plaintiff argued that, as a matter of natural justice, the court should consider only the circumstances as at the date the application was filed. Since the statement of claim did not exist when the application was first filed, the plaintiff contended that the court should not take it into account.
The second key issue concerned the substantive viability of the claims endorsed on the writ for the purposes of striking out. As against the 1st defendant, the defendants argued that there was never any concluded Procurement Agreement. In the alternative, even if such an agreement existed, it was superseded by the Concorde charterparty. As against the 2nd defendant, the defendants argued that the matters complained of were fully and finally compromised by the Settlement Agreement, and therefore the suit was an abuse of process.
Related to these issues was the procedural constraint that the court’s striking out analysis should focus on the causes of action mentioned in the writ and those arising from the same facts, rather than on additional causes of action that were only pleaded in the statement of claim but not endorsed on the writ. The court therefore had to consider how the endorsement on the writ affected the scope of the strike-out inquiry.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
On the preliminary issue, the judge rejected the plaintiff’s submission that the court was confined to the position as at the date the application was filed. The judge emphasised that an appeal from a registrar to a judge in chambers is not an appeal in the strict sense. Citing Chang Ah Lek and others v Lim Ah Koon [1998] 3 SLR(R) 551, the court noted that the judge in chambers deals with the matter “as though the matter came before him for the first time”. This approach supports the admission and consideration of fresh evidence in appropriate circumstances, as reflected in Lian Soon Construction Pte Ltd v Guan Qian Realty Pte Ltd [1999] 1 SLR(R) 1053. The judge reasoned that it would be odd if the court could consider fresh evidence but could not consider pleadings filed after the hearing below.
The judge also observed that the plaintiff’s objection was procedurally and logically problematic. The plaintiff had itself referred to the statement of claim in oral submissions, and it was not open to the plaintiff to complain that it had no opportunity to address issues arising from its own pleadings. The court’s approach reflects a broader principle that parties must accept the consequences of their pleadings and cannot strategically limit the court’s review by withholding or later challenging the relevance of documents they themselves produced.
Having clarified that the court could take cognisance of the statement of claim, the judge then addressed the scope of the striking out exercise. The court noted that Order 18 r 15(2) of the Rules of Court provides that a statement of claim must not contain any allegation or claim in respect of a cause of action unless that cause of action is mentioned in the writ or arises from facts that are the same as, or include or form part of, the facts giving rise to a cause of action mentioned in the writ. The judge therefore limited consideration to the claims for breach of the Procurement Agreement and the procuring of that breach as endorsed on the writ. Claims for misrepresentation and conspiracy that were raised in the statement of claim but not endorsed on the writ were not within the scope of the striking out application.
This limitation was important because it prevented the plaintiff from expanding the case beyond what was properly endorsed in the writ. The judge also made clear that, although the court has power to grant leave to amend, the plaintiff did not seek to amend the writ to enlarge it to include the additional misrepresentation and conspiracy claims. The judge’s emphasis on the endorsement requirement underscores the procedural discipline in admiralty writs and the need for plaintiffs to ensure that the writ accurately captures the causes of action they intend to pursue.
Turning to the substantive arguments, the judge accepted that the striking out application pertained to the writ rather than the statement of claim. Nonetheless, the judge held there was no reason to ignore the statement of claim when assessing whether the endorsed claims were viable. The statement of claim could illuminate the factual and legal difficulties in the pleaded case, particularly where the endorsement on the writ lacked essential details. The judge’s reasoning suggests that, while the writ governs the formal scope of the action, the court may still consider the pleadings to understand the nature of the endorsed claims and whether they disclose a reasonable cause of action.
Although the provided extract truncates the remainder of the judgment, the structure of the analysis is clear from the issues identified. The court would have evaluated whether the Procurement Agreement was concluded and, if so, whether it was superseded by the Concorde charterparty. It would also have considered whether the Settlement Agreement between Likpin and the 2nd defendant operated as a full and final compromise of the matters now complained of, thereby rendering the suit an abuse of process. In doing so, the court would have applied standard striking out principles: whether the claim is frivolous or vexatious, whether it discloses no reasonable cause of action, and whether the procedural posture amounts to an impermissible attempt to relitigate matters already settled.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court dismissed the defendants’ preliminary procedural objection by holding that it could take cognisance of the statement of claim filed after the assistant registrar’s hearing. The court then proceeded to assess the viability of the plaintiff’s endorsed claims for the purposes of the striking out application.
On the merits, the court ultimately upheld the defendants’ position that the plaintiff’s suit could not stand as pleaded. The appeal to the High Court was dismissed, and the matter proceeded no further in the plaintiff’s favour. Notably, the LawNet editorial note indicates that the plaintiff’s appeal to the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No 199 of 2015 was dismissed on 25 July 2016 (see [2016] SGCA 48), confirming the High Court’s approach and conclusions.
Why Does This Case Matter?
Likpin International Ltd v Swiber Holdings Ltd is significant for practitioners because it demonstrates how Singapore courts manage striking out applications in admiralty in personam proceedings, particularly where the dispute involves charterparty arrangements, multiple related entities, and subsequent settlement agreements. The case highlights that plaintiffs cannot treat settlement as a mere background fact; where a settlement agreement is intended to be “fully and finally” comprehensive, later attempts to reframe the dispute through protective writs may be vulnerable to being struck out or characterised as an abuse of process.
From a procedural standpoint, the decision underscores the importance of the writ endorsement and the relationship between the writ and the statement of claim. Order 18 r 15(2) of the Rules of Court plays a central role in limiting what causes of action can be pleaded and pursued. Even where the statement of claim contains additional causes of action, the court may refuse to consider them for a striking out application if they are not endorsed on the writ or do not arise from the same facts as the endorsed causes of action.
For litigators, the case also provides guidance on the scope of appellate review from a registrar to a judge in chambers. The court’s reliance on Chang Ah Lek and related authorities confirms that such appeals are not confined to the record as it stood at the time of the registrar’s decision. This matters for strategy and case management: parties should expect that the judge may consider relevant pleadings and materials filed after the registrar’s hearing, subject to the governing procedural rules and fairness considerations.
Legislation Referenced
- High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123, 2001 Rev Ed), s 3(1)(h)
- Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed), Order 18 r 15(2)
Cases Cited
- Likpin International Ltd v Swiber Holdings Ltd and another [2015] SGHC 248
- Chang Ah Lek and others v Lim Ah Koon [1998] 3 SLR(R) 551
- Lian Soon Construction Pte Ltd v Guan Qian Realty Pte Ltd [1999] 1 SLR(R) 1053
- Likpin International Ltd v Swiber Holdings Ltd and another [2016] SGCA 48
Source Documents
This article analyses [2015] SGHC 248 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.