Kabanov Vladimir v The Owners of Virgo I: Security for Costs & Vessel Ownership Dispute
In Kabanov Vladimir & 18 Others v The Owners of The Ship or Vessel "Virgo I" ex "Kapitan Voloshin" and Others, the Singapore High Court heard an appeal by Falkland Investments Ltd ("Falkland") against the decision to dismiss its application for security for costs from the second intervener, Joint Stock Company Vladivostok Base of Trawling & Refrigeratory Fleet (VBTRF). The underlying action involved claims for unpaid wages by the crew of the vessel "Virgo I". Falkland, claiming ownership of the vessel, sought security for costs from VBTRF, which also claimed ownership. Lim Teong Qwee JC allowed the appeal, ordering VBTRF to provide security for costs in the amount of S$20,000.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed. VBTRF was ordered to provide security for costs in the amount of S$20,000.
1.3 Case Type
Admiralty
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding security for costs in a vessel ownership dispute. The court ordered VBTRF to provide security for Falkland's costs.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kabanov Vladimir & 18 Others | Plaintiff | Other | Judgments satisfied | Won | |
| The Owners of The Ship or Vessel "Virgo I" ex "Kapitan Voloshin" | Defendant | Other | Security for costs ordered | Lost | Vivian Ang, Mark Ortega |
| Singapore Technologies Marine Ltd | Interveners | Corporation | Judgments satisfied | Won | |
| Joint Stock Company Vladivostok Base of Trawling & Refrigeratory Fleet (VBTRF) | Interveners | Corporation | Security for costs ordered | Lost | Khoo Kah Ho |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lim Teong Qwee | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Vivian Ang | Allen & Gledhill |
| Mark Ortega | Allen & Gledhill |
| Khoo Kah Ho | Fabian & Khoo |
4. Facts
- The plaintiffs are crew members claiming unpaid wages.
- The vessel "Virgo I" was arrested on 18 November 1998.
- Falkland Investments Ltd claimed ownership of the vessel.
- VBTRF also claimed ownership of the vessel.
- The vessel was sold, and the plaintiffs' and ST Marine's judgments were satisfied.
- A dispute arose over the balance of the proceeds of sale.
- VBTRF sought to have an agreement transferring the vessel to Falkland declared null and void.
5. Formal Citations
- Kabanov Vladimir & 18 Others v The Owners of The Ship or Vessel "Virgo I" ex "Kapitan Voloshin" and Others, Adm in Rem 774/1998, RA 000461/1999, [2000] SGHC 110
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Writ issued and vessel arrested | |
| Order of court for the sale of the vessel | |
| Judgment in default of appearance entered | |
| Judgment in default of appearance entered in Admiralty in Rem Suit No 854 of 1998 | |
| Falkland applied for leave to enter an appearance as defendant | |
| Assistant registrar gave directions for affidavits to be filed | |
| Court ordered Falkland to be at liberty to enter an appearance as defendants | |
| VBTRF's application to intervene was granted | |
| VBTRF applied by motion for orders | |
| Assistant registrar dismissed Falkland's application for security for costs | |
| Appeal heard and allowed |
7. Legal Issues
- Security for Costs
- Outcome: The court allowed the appeal and ordered VBTRF to provide security for costs.
- Category: Procedural
- Vessel Ownership Dispute
- Outcome: The court did not make a final determination on the issue of ownership, but it was a central issue in the application for security for costs.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Security for costs
- Declaration of agreement as null and void
- Payment out of proceeds of sale
9. Cause of Actions
- Claim for unpaid wages
- Dispute over vessel ownership
10. Practice Areas
- Admiralty
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Shipping
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tomlinson v The Land and Finance Corporation Ltd | N/A | Yes | (1884) 14 QBD 539 | N/A | Cited to support the principle that a party asserting a right to a fund in court is substantially a plaintiff, even if nominally a defendant. |
| In re Milward & Co | N/A | Yes | [1900] 1 Ch 405 | N/A | Cited to support the principle that a claimant to a fund is in the position of a plaintiff and may be required to provide security for costs. |
| The Silver Fir | N/A | Yes | [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 371 | N/A | Cited to support the court's discretion to order security for costs against both claimants and respondents in arbitration. |
| Neck v Taylor | N/A | Yes | [1893] 1 QB 560 | N/A | Cited regarding the court's discretion in ordering security for costs when a counterclaim arises from the same matter as the claim. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Section 388(1) of the Companies Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Security for costs
- Vessel ownership
- Admiralty in rem
- Intervener
- Proceeds of sale
- Liquidation
15.2 Keywords
- Admiralty
- Security for costs
- Vessel ownership
- Singapore
- High Court
16. Subjects
- Admiralty
- Shipping Law
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Admiralty Law
- Civil Procedure
- Security for Costs