Ah Lam II & Pu 1804 v Bonito: Appeal for Extension of Time to File Damages Assessment

In an admiralty action before the High Court of Singapore, the owners of the ships "Ah Lam II" and "Pu 1804" (plaintiffs) appealed against decisions dismissing their application for extension of time to file and serve the reference to registrar for assessment of damages and ordering that the reference filed be struck out. The case arose from a collision between the plaintiffs’ vessels and the defendant's vessel "Bonito". The High Court allowed the appeals, finding that the action had not been dismissed and that the plaintiffs should be granted an extension of time, as the defendants would not suffer irreparable prejudice.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Admiralty

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding collision between vessels. The court allowed the appeal for extension of time to file damages assessment.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
The Owners of the Ships or Vessels "Ah Lam II" and "Pu 1804"Plaintiff, RespondentOtherAppeal AllowedWon
The Owners of the Ship or Vessel "Bonito"Defendant, AppellantOtherAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lim Teong QweeJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Mohamed Goush MarikanJoseph Tan Jude Benny
Danny ChuaJoseph Tan Jude Benny
Collin SeahRajah & Tann
Habib AnwarRajah & Tann

4. Facts

  1. A collision occurred between the plaintiffs’ vessels "Ah Lam II" and "Pu 1804" and the defendants’ vessel "Bonito".
  2. The plaintiffs claimed damages arising out of the collision.
  3. The defendants made an offer to settle the plaintiffs’ claim for 50% of the claim as proved or agreed.
  4. The plaintiffs accepted the offer to settle.
  5. The parties were to refer to the registrar to assess damages if the quantum of damages could not be agreed.
  6. The plaintiffs applied for an extension of time to file and serve the reference to registrar for assessment of damages.
  7. The defendants contended that the action had been dismissed for failure to comply with an 'unless order'.

5. Formal Citations

  1. The Owners of the Ships or Vessels "Ah Lam II" and "Pu 1804" v The Owners of the Ship or Vessel "Bonito", Adm in Rem 69/1992, RA 600197/2000, RA 600224/2000, [2000] SGHC 210

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Writ issued
Interest accrues from this date
Letter of guarantee issued by Mitsui Marine & Fire Insurance Co Ltd
Letter of undertaking issued by Britannia Steamship Insurance Association Ltd
Offer to settle served on the plaintiffs
Defendants confirmed they had no claim against the plaintiffs
Plaintiffs gave notice of acceptance of the offer
Pre-trial conference held
Plaintiffs’ solicitors delivered a statement containing a claim
Time to file the notice of appointment for damages to be assessed extended
Defendants’ solicitors requested further information and documents
Plaintiffs filed an application to further extend time
Plaintiffs’ solicitors provided further information
Plaintiffs filed and served a list of documents and an affidavit verifying the list
Plaintiffs complied with the defendants’ request for further information and documents
Time extended to 30 November 1997 for the reference to be filed
Defendants’ solicitors requested further information and documents
Defendants’ solicitors informed the plaintiffs’ solicitors that the action had been dismissed
Plaintiffs’ solicitors submitted a revised breakdown of the claim
Defendants’ solicitors repeated their assertion that the action had been dismissed
Reference filed
Plaintiffs filed an application for further extension of time to file and serve the reference
Application dismissed
Appeal allowed
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Extension of Time
    • Outcome: The court held that the plaintiffs ought to have been granted an extension of time.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to comply with 'unless order'
    • Related Cases:
      • [1986] 2 Ll LR 574
      • [1998] 3 SLR 105
      • [1993] 1 All ER 952

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Damages arising out of a collision

10. Practice Areas

  • Admiralty Litigation

11. Industries

  • Shipping

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Hitachi Sales (UK) Ltd v Mitsui OSK Lines LtdN/AYes[1986] 2 Ll LR 574United KingdomCited regarding the requirement for an order to be unambiguous and specify the time limit from a starting time.
The Tokai MaruCourt of AppealYes[1998] 3 SLR 105SingaporeCited for the principles applicable to the case, particularly regarding the denial of an extension of time and prejudice to the other party.
Costellow v Somerset County CouncilN/AYes[1993] 1 All ER 952United KingdomCited for the principles regarding the just resolution of cases and the opportunity to dispute claims on the merits.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 42 r 2(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court
O 42 r 6(1)
O 42 r 9(1)
O 42 r 9(2)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Collision
  • Damages
  • Extension of time
  • Unless order
  • Reference to registrar
  • Assessment of damages
  • Offer to settle

15.2 Keywords

  • Collision
  • Shipping
  • Damages
  • Extension of time
  • Admiralty

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Admiralty and Maritime Law90
Shipping Law90
Extension of Time80
Collision75
Damages70
Civil Procedure60
Contract Law50
Arbitration30

16. Subjects

  • Admiralty
  • Shipping
  • Civil Procedure