Zarkovic Stanko v Owners of the Ship MARA: Admiralty Jurisdiction, Personal Injury, and Contractual Compensation
In Zarkovic Stanko v Owners of the Ship or Vessel `MARA`, the Singapore Court of Appeal heard an appeal regarding the High Court's jurisdiction over a claim by Zarkovic Stanko, a fitter injured on the ship MARA, for compensation under his employment contract. The court also considered whether Stanko could claim this compensation in addition to a settlement he received for his tort claim. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the High Court did have admiralty jurisdiction over the claim and that Stanko was entitled to the contractual compensation in addition to the settlement.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Admiralty
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal addressed admiralty jurisdiction over a fitter's injury claim and whether he could claim contractual compensation in addition to a settlement.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zarkovic Stanko | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| Owners of the Ship or Vessel `MARA` | Respondent | Other | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| L P Thean | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Zarkovic Stanko was employed as a fitter on the ship MARA.
- Stanko's employment contract incorporated a collective agreement with the International Transport Workers Federation.
- Stanko was injured on board the ship MARA on 6 September 1992.
- Stanko claimed compensation under art 15 of the collective agreement, in addition to damages for negligence.
- The parties reached a settlement agreement for US$420,000, excluding the claim under art 15.
- The High Court initially held it lacked jurisdiction over the art 15 claim and disallowed double recovery.
5. Formal Citations
- Zarkovic Stanko v Owners of the Ship or Vessel `MARA`, CA 207/1999, [2000] SGCA 47
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Shipboard contract signed between Zarkovic Stanko and the Owners of the Ship or Vessel `MARA`. | |
| Collective agreement signed between the respondents and the International Transport Workers Federation. | |
| Zarkovic Stanko injured on board the ship MARA. | |
| Settlement agreement reached between the parties. | |
| Appellant took out an application by way of summons for further directions. | |
| Application heard before the assistant registrar. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Admiralty Jurisdiction
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that the High Court did have admiralty jurisdiction over the appellant's claim under s 3(1)(f) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Interpretation of High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act
- Scope of admiralty jurisdiction over personal injury claims
- Related Cases:
- [1925] P 27
- [1985] AC 711
- [1994] 3 SLR 827
- Double Recovery
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that the appellant was entitled to recover the contractual compensation under art 15 in addition to the settlement he received, finding that it did not amount to double recovery.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Entitlement to contractual compensation in addition to settlement
- Exceptions to the rule against double recovery
- Related Cases:
- [1988] AC 514
- [1874] LR 10 Exch 1
- [1947] NI 167
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Compensation under employment contract
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Negligence
10. Practice Areas
- Admiralty Litigation
- Shipping Litigation
- Personal Injury
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Shipping
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Moliere | English Court | Yes | [1925] P 27 | United Kingdom | Cited by the lower court to support the view that admiralty jurisdiction in personal injury cases is limited to tort claims and does not include claims for statutory compensation payable irrespective of fault. The Court of Appeal distinguished this case. |
| The Antonis P Lemos; Samick Lines Co Ltd v Owners of the Antonis P Lemos | House of Lords | Yes | [1985] AC 711 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that a broad and liberal construction should be given to statutory provisions conferring admiralty jurisdiction on the courts. |
| The Trade Fair | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR 827 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the words 'any claim for loss of life or personal injury' in s 3(1)(f) of the Act should be construed to mean 'any claim arising out of loss of life or personal injury'. |
| Alexander G Tsavliris & Sons Maritime Co v Keppel Corp Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR 113 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the words 'in the nature of salvage' in s 3(1)(i) of the Act should be construed to mean 'arising out of salvage'. |
| The Indriani | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR 305 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the phrase 'arising out of' within s 3(1)(h) of the Act should be construed broadly and liberally to mean 'connected with' rather than narrowly to mean 'arising under'. |
| The Saint Anna | English Court | Yes | [1983] 1 Lloyd's Rep 637 | United Kingdom | Cited in Alexander G Tsavliris & Sons Maritime Co v Keppel Corp Ltd [1995] 2 SLR 113, where Sheen J held that an arbitration award made pursuant to an agreement to refer to arbitration contained in a voyage charterparty could be enforced by an action in rem brought under s 20(2)(h) of the United Kingdom Supreme Court Act 1981. |
| Hussain v New Taplow Paper Mills Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1988] AC 514 | United Kingdom | Cited for the basic rule that damages in negligence are purely compensatory, and any gain received by the injured plaintiff, which he would not have but for the injury, will be taken into account. |
| Bradburn v Great Western Rly Co | Court of Exchequer | Yes | [1874] LR 10 Exch 1 | United Kingdom | Cited as an exception to the rule against double recovery, where insurance moneys are not deductible from damages payable by the tortfeasor. |
| Redpath v Belfast and County Down Railway | Northern Ireland High Court | Yes | [1947] NI 167 | Northern Ireland | Cited as an exception to the rule against double recovery, where money received from the benevolence of third parties is to be disregarded. |
| Payne v Railway Executive | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1952] 1 KB 26 | United Kingdom | Cited as a borderline case where a disability pension was not taken into consideration in reduction of damages. |
| Watson v Ramsay | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [1961] 78 WN (NSW) 64 | Australia | Cited as a borderline case where superannuation payments were disregarded in the assessment of damages. |
| National Insurance Co of New Zealand Ltd v Espagne | High Court | Yes | [1961] 105 CLR 569 | New Zealand | Cited as a borderline case where an invalid pension was to be disregarded in the assessment of damages. |
| Graham v Baker | High Court of Australia | Yes | [1961] 106 CLR 340 | Australia | Cited as a case where no account should be taken of the pension payment accrued and paid to the plaintiff for the period between the date of the compulsory retirement and the date on which he would retire in the ordinary course of events. |
| Parry v Cleaver | House of Lords | Yes | [1970] AC 1 | United Kingdom | Cited as a leading case where an ill-health or disablement pension should not be taken into account and be deducted in the computation of damages. |
| McCamley v Cammell Laird Shipbuilders Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1990] 1 All ER 854 | United Kingdom | Cited by the appellant to contend that the payment under art 15 is in the nature of insurance benefits arranged by or through the respondents and also an act of benevolence on the respondents` part and should thus be excluded in the computation of damages for the tort for which the respondents are liable. The Court of Appeal distinguished this case. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Admiralty jurisdiction
- Personal injury
- Contract of employment
- Collective agreement
- Double recovery
- Settlement agreement
- Compensation for disability
- Annuity
- Defect in ship
- Wrongful act
15.2 Keywords
- Admiralty jurisdiction
- Personal injury
- Contract
- Compensation
- Shipping
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Admiralty and Maritime Law | 90 |
| Personal Injury | 80 |
| Contract Law | 75 |
| Breach of Contract | 70 |
| Employment Law | 65 |
| Work Injury Compensation | 60 |
| Shipping Disputes | 50 |
| Double Recovery | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Admiralty
- Shipping
- Contract Law
- Personal Injury