Case Details
- Citation: [2019] SGHC 57
- Title: The “Mount Apo” and the “Hanjin Ras Laffan”
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date of Decision: 08 March 2019
- Judge: Pang Khang Chau JC
- Coram: Pang Khang Chau JC
- Case Numbers: Admiralty in Rem No 246 of 2015 and Admiralty in Rem No 195 of 2015
- Proceedings: Admiralty in rem; consolidated action
- Nature of Trial: Liability apportionment only (damages to be assessed by the Registrar)
- Parties (as described in the judgment): Owner of the ship or vessel “MOUNT APO” — Owner and/or demise charterer of the ship or vessel “HANJIN RAS LAFFAN” — Owner and/or demise charterer of the ship or vessel “MOUNT APO”
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Cisslow Shipping Inc. (in ADM 246)
- Defendant/Respondent: Owner and/or demise charterer of the Hanjin Ras Laffan (ADM 246); and owner and/or demise charterer of the Mount Apo (ADM 195)
- Plaintiffs/Counterclaiming defendants (ADM 195): KSH International S.A. and H-Line Shipping Co. Ltd.
- Lead Action: ADM 246 designated the lead action
- Consolidation Order: Order of court dated 2 June 2016
- Legal Areas: Admiralty and Shipping — Collision; Evidence — Admissibility of evidence; Evidence — Documentary evidence
- Statutes Referenced: Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)
- Key International Instrument: International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS) (1972), incorporated as a Schedule to the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Collisions at Sea) Regulations (Cap 179, s 208, Rg 10, 1990 Rev Ed)
- COLREGS Provisions in issue: Rule 10; Rules 15 and 17 (interaction in crossing situations); Rule 10(c) duty to cross at right angles
- Evidence Themes: Hearsay exceptions; documentary evidence; proof of contents; reliability; exclusion/weight under the Evidence Act
- Cases Cited: [2012] SGHC 135; [2019] SGHC 57 (this case)
- Judgment Length: 58 pages, 28,996 words
- Counsel: Chan Leng Sun SC and Muhammad Muzhaffar bin Omar (Wong & Leow LLC) instructed; Mohamed Goush s/o Marikan and Syed Isa bin Mohamed Alhabshee (Goush Marikan Law Practice) for the plaintiff by original action and defendant in the counterclaim; Leong Kah Wah, Dedi Affandi bin Ahmad, and Tay Jia En (Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP) for the defendant by original action and plaintiff in counterclaim
Summary
The High Court in The “Mount Apo” and the “Hanjin Ras Laffan” ([2019] SGHC 57) arose from a collision in the Singapore Strait on 8 August 2015 at about 9:59am. The capesize bulk carrier Mount Apo collided with the LNG carrier Hanjin Ras Laffan within the westbound lane of the Traffic Separation Scheme (“TSS”). The case required the court to apportion liability between the vessels, focusing on the navigation duties imposed by the COLREGS—particularly the obligations of a vessel crossing a TSS under Rule 10, and the duties that arise in crossing situations under Rules 15 and 17.
In addition to the substantive collision analysis, the court dealt with a preliminary evidential issue concerning the title to sue of H-Line Shipping Co. Ltd. (the demise charterer of Hanjin Ras Laffan). The plaintiff Mount Apo challenged the admissibility and reliability of documentary evidence tendered to prove demise charter status. The court’s approach illustrates how Singapore courts treat documentary evidence under the Evidence Act, including the hearsay framework and the discretion to exclude or assign reduced weight where reliability is in question.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
On 8 August 2015, at approximately 9:59am, the capesize bulk carrier Mount Apo collided with the LNG carrier Hanjin Ras Laffan. The collision occurred within the westbound lane of the Traffic Separation Scheme in the Singapore Strait. At the time, Hanjin Ras Laffan was transiting the Singapore Strait from east to west, meaning it was proceeding in the general direction of traffic within the westbound lane.
Mount Apo, by contrast, had just left the port of Singapore and was attempting to cross the westbound lane of the TSS. Its intention was to move from the westbound lane into the eastbound lane so that it could continue its voyage eastwards. This manoeuvre placed Mount Apo squarely within the “crossing” paradigm contemplated by the COLREGS, and it is precisely this interaction—between the duty to cross a TSS at right angles and the duties that apply in crossing situations—that became central to the liability analysis.
Procedurally, the collision spawned two sets of admiralty in rem proceedings. Admiralty in rem No 246 of 2015 (“ADM 246”) was brought by the owner of Mount Apo, Cisslow Shipping Inc. (“Cisslow”), against the owner and/or demise charterer of Hanjin Ras Laffan. Admiralty in rem No 195 of 2015 (“ADM 195”) was brought by the owner of Hanjin Ras Laffan, KSH International S.A. (“KSH”), and the demise charterer, H-Line Shipping Co. Ltd. (“H-Line”), against the owner and/or demise charterer of Mount Apo. The parties thus adopted mirror-image positions, each seeking to recover losses from the other vessel.
By an order dated 2 June 2016, the two actions were consolidated into a single proceeding, with ADM 246 designated as the lead action. The plaintiffs in ADM 195 were treated as counterclaiming defendants in the consolidated action. Importantly, the trial before the court was limited to apportionment of liability only, because both sides had asked for a reference to the Registrar to assess the amount of damages, losses, and/or expenses.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The first major issue concerned the apportionment of liability under the COLREGS. The court had to determine how the navigation duties of each vessel applied to the specific manoeuvre and circumstances at the time of collision. In particular, the court had to consider the obligations of a vessel crossing traffic lanes in a TSS under Rule 10 of the COLREGS, and how that interacts with crossing duties under Rules 15 and 17. The case raised the question whether, and how, a vessel’s Rule 10(c) duty to cross at right angles to the general direction of traffic flow affects its Rule 17 duty to keep course and speed as a stand-on vessel in a crossing situation arising under Rule 15.
The second major issue was evidential and preliminary: whether H-Line had title to sue as the demise charterer of Hanjin Ras Laffan at the time of collision. Mount Apo argued that H-Line had not proven that it was the demise charterer, and therefore should not be allowed to recover losses beyond those attributable to KSH (if any). This issue required the court to examine the admissibility and reliability of documentary evidence tendered to prove the charterparty chain and the vessel’s operational status.
Finally, the judgment also addressed the proper use of very high frequency (“VHF”) radio communications between passing vessels. While the extract provided does not reproduce the full analysis, the court’s identification of this issue signals that the collision narrative included radio exchanges, and that the court had to evaluate whether the parties complied with the COLREGS’ communication expectations and whether any non-compliance affected causation and fault.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court began by framing the collision in terms of the COLREGS’ structure. It identified that the collision occurred within a TSS and involved a vessel attempting to cross the westbound lane. This factual setting is critical because Rule 10 is specifically designed to regulate vessel behaviour when crossing traffic lanes in a TSS. The court then highlighted that the legal analysis could not stop at Rule 10 alone; it also had to consider the “crossing situation” rules in Rules 15 and 17. The court’s approach reflects a common method in collision cases: identify the applicable rule set, determine which vessel is the give-way or stand-on vessel in the relevant crossing scenario, and then assess whether each vessel complied with the corresponding duties.
Within that framework, the court focused on the interaction between Rule 10(c) and Rule 17. Rule 10(c) requires a vessel crossing a TSS to do so at right angles to the general direction of traffic flow. The court treated this as a navigational obligation that may influence whether the crossing vessel’s approach created an avoidable risk or failed to manage its manoeuvre safely. At the same time, if the situation qualifies as a crossing situation under Rule 15, the stand-on vessel’s duty under Rule 17 to keep course and speed becomes relevant. The court therefore had to reconcile the duties that arise from the TSS crossing context with the duties that arise from the crossing relationship between the vessels.
On the evidential preliminary issue, the court addressed whether H-Line needed to prove demise charter status to have title to sue. The court noted that it was “common ground” that H-Line had to show it was the demise charterer at the time of collision. However, the court also observed that a recent Court of Appeal decision, NTUC Foodfare Co-operative Ltd v SIA Engineering Co Ltd and anor [2018] 2 SLR 588, suggested that Singapore negligence law does not require a claimant to own or have possessory title to the property to sue for loss flowing from damage to that property. The court therefore expressed “open to question” whether the concession on demise charter status was legally necessary, but it assumed the point without deciding because the parties conducted the case on that basis.
H-Line’s proof relied primarily on the testimony of its deputy manager, Ms Yoo Jin Joo. The court accepted that Ms Joo’s responsibilities included regulatory filings, liaising with the Panama ship registry, and liaising with insurers, which gave her a basis for personal knowledge about the vessel’s management arrangements. To corroborate her testimony, H-Line exhibited multiple documents, including bareboat charter hire purchase agreements, amendments and restatements, a novation and amendment agreement, and continuous synopsis records (“CSR”) issued by the Panama ship registry. The CSR records were particularly important because they were issued by a ship registry and indicated that Hanjin Ras Laffan was operated by H-Line under a registered bareboat charter.
Mount Apo challenged the admissibility and reliability of these documents. It argued, in essence, that the documents were unreliable because (i) no witness familiar with the documents could attest to their truth, (ii) Ms Joo did not sign the novation and related charter documents and joined H-Line after some of the relevant dates, and (iii) there were discrepancies between the “originals” tendered at trial and the copies exhibited in Ms Joo’s affidavits—such as differences in handwritten entries on the cover page of the 2010 agreement. The court treated these submissions as raising issues under the Evidence Act’s hearsay framework and the court’s discretion to exclude or to assign reduced weight where reliability is in doubt.
Although the extract does not include the court’s final evidential rulings, the structure of the analysis is clear: the court had to determine whether the documents fell within the hearsay exception for business records (as Mt Apo accepted they did), and then whether the court should exclude them under the interests of justice or assign minimal weight due to alleged unreliability. This is a familiar pattern in Singapore documentary evidence disputes: once a document is prima facie admissible under a hearsay exception, the contest often shifts to reliability, authenticity, and the weight to be given to the evidence.
What Was the Outcome?
The provided extract does not include the court’s final liability apportionment percentages or its conclusive orders. However, the judgment’s procedural posture confirms that the trial was limited to apportionment of liability only. Both sides had pleaded competing apportionment outcomes: Hanjin Ras Laffan alleged that Mount Apo bore the preponderance of blame and sought 70%/30% apportionment in its favour, while Mount Apo argued that Hanjin Ras Laffan was predominantly at fault and sought 80%/20% apportionment in its favour.
In addition, the court’s treatment of the preliminary issue on H-Line’s title to sue would have practical consequences for the scope of recoverable losses. If the court accepted H-Line’s demise charter status (and the documentary evidence supporting it), H-Line could recover as counterclaiming claimant. If not, the court’s evidential findings would likely have constrained recovery to losses attributable to KSH (subject to apportionment). The final outcome therefore turned on both the collision fault analysis and the evidential admissibility/reliability determinations.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This decision is significant for practitioners because it addresses a recurring and difficult collision scenario: a vessel crossing a TSS and the legal consequences of that manoeuvre under the COLREGS. The court’s emphasis on the interaction between Rule 10(c) and the crossing duties under Rules 15 and 17 provides a structured approach for future cases. Lawyers advising shipowners, charterers, and insurers can use the case to frame arguments about whether the crossing vessel’s manner of crossing created an avoidable risk and whether the stand-on/give-way allocation under the crossing rules should influence fault apportionment.
From an evidential perspective, the case also matters because it demonstrates how documentary evidence is litigated in admiralty proceedings. The dispute over demise charter status required the court to engage with the Evidence Act’s hearsay exceptions and the reliability concerns that can arise when documents are tendered through a witness who did not personally sign them, or when there are discrepancies between copies and purported originals. For litigators, the case underscores the importance of document authentication, consistency between affidavit exhibits and trial tendered documents, and the need to anticipate challenges to reliability even where business-records admissibility is conceded.
Finally, the case’s identification of VHF radio communications as an issue highlights that collision litigation in Singapore often extends beyond “who had the right of way” to include whether communication practices were adequate and whether any failure to communicate contributed to the collision. This is particularly relevant in modern shipping disputes where bridge-to-bridge communications, recordings, and contemporaneous logs can be central to causation and fault.
Legislation Referenced
- Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) — in particular provisions relating to hearsay exceptions and the court’s discretion to exclude or assign weight to documentary evidence (as referenced in the judgment extract: s 32(1)(b)(iv), s 32(3), s 32(5))
- Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Collisions at Sea) Regulations (Cap 179, s 208, Rg 10, 1990 Rev Ed) — incorporating the COLREGS
- International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (as amended) (1972) — COLREGS Rules 10, 15, 17 (and related provisions on navigation and crossing situations)
Cases Cited
- [2012] SGHC 135
- [2019] SGHC 57
- NTUC Foodfare Co-operative Ltd v SIA Engineering Co Ltd and anor [2018] 2 SLR 588
Source Documents
This article analyses [2019] SGHC 57 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.