Singapore Airlines v Fujitsu: Limitation of Liability under Warsaw Convention

In Singapore Airlines Ltd and Another v Fujitsu Microelectronics (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd and Others, the Court of Appeal addressed the issue of costs and interest on a refunded judgment sum after allowing the appellants' appeal. The court held that the appellants were entitled to the protection of the limitation of liability laid down by the Warsaw Convention, as amended by the Hague Protocol. The court ordered costs against the respondents for the action and the appeal be on the standard basis, and addressed the refund of payments made by the appellants with interest.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Order accordingly.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore Airlines Ltd v Fujitsu Microelectronics: Court of Appeal addresses costs and interest on refunded judgment sum after appeal on limitation of liability.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Singapore Airlines LtdAppellantCorporationAppeal AllowedWonP Selvadurai, Lok Vi Ming, Lawrence Teh
Fujitsu Microelectronics (Malaysia) Sdn BhdRespondentCorporationAppeal DismissedLostBelinda Ang Fong, Gerald Yee

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of AppealNo
L P TheanJustice of AppealNo
Yong Pung HowChief JusticeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
P SelvaduraiRodyk & Davidson
Lok Vi MingRodyk & Davidson
Lawrence TehRodyk & Davidson
Belinda Ang FongAng & Partners
Gerald YeeAng & Partners

4. Facts

  1. The appellants appealed against a judgment regarding the loss of a package.
  2. The appellants claimed entitlement to limitation of liability under the Warsaw Convention.
  3. The appellants made an offer to settle for S$347 including interest.
  4. The respondents obtained a judgment sum based on the limitation of liability.
  5. The respondents placed the monies received in an interest-bearing account.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Singapore Airlines Ltd and Another v Fujitsu Microelectronics (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd and Others, CA 21/2000, [2001] SGCA 1
  2. , , [2001] 1 SLR 241

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Writ instituted
Writ served on the appellants
Appellants offered to settle the action
Court allowed the appeal of the appellants

7. Legal Issues

  1. Offer to Settle
    • Outcome: The court held that the offer to settle was not a genuine offer to settle as it did not contain any incentive to settle, and ordered costs against the respondents for the action and the appeal be on the standard basis.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Entitlement to costs on indemnity basis
      • Compliance with Order 22A r 9(3)
  2. Certificate for Two Counsel
    • Outcome: The court refused to issue a certificate for two counsel for the appeal, finding that the appeal did not present issues of such complexity which required the services of two counsel.
    • Category: Procedural
  3. Refund of Payment Made with Interest
    • Outcome: The court ordered that the respondents should return the sums received, plus whatever interest earned thereon, to the appellants, focusing on restitution from the respondents rather than compensation to the appellants.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Costs
  2. Refund of payment with interest

9. Cause of Actions

  • Recovery of Loss

10. Practice Areas

  • Appeals
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Airlines

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
The Endurance 1Court of AppealYes[1999] 1 SLR 661SingaporeCited for the rationale and scope of Order 22A rr 9 and 12 of the Rules of Court regarding offers to settle.
Burton v Global Benefit Plan Consultants IncN/AYes[1999] 93 ACWS (3d) 223CanadaCited regarding nominal offers to settle and whether solicitor-client costs should be awarded.
Data General (Canada) Ltd v Molnar System GroupOntario Court of AppealYes[1991] 85 DLR (4th) 392CanadaCited regarding the element of compromise in offers to settle and the awarding of costs on an indemnity basis.
Tickell v Trifleska Pty Ltd & AnorSupreme Court of New South WalesYes[1991] 25 NSWLR 353AustraliaCited regarding offers to compromise for 100% of the amount claimed and the awarding of costs on an indemnity basis.
Stanley v PhillipsN/AYes[1966] 115 CLR 470AustraliaCited regarding whether the services of more than one counsel are reasonably necessary for the adequate presentation of a case.
Rodger v ComptoirPrivy CouncilYes[1871] LR 3 PC 465N/ACited for the principle that the return of money should be with interest when a judgment is reversed on appeal.
Idemitsu Queensland Pty Ltd v Agipcoal Australia Pty LtdN/AYes[1966] 1 Qd R 26AustraliaCited regarding the focus on the loss sustained by the appellant versus the fruits of the judgment enjoyed by the respondent when determining interest rates.
State Bank of New South Wales v Commissioner of TaxationN/AYes[1995] 62 FCR 371AustraliaCited regarding the focus on the fruits of the judgment enjoyed by the respondent when determining interest rates.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Order 22A r 9(3)Singapore
Order 22A r 12Singapore
Order 42 r 12Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Limitation of liability
  • Offer to settle
  • Indemnity basis
  • Restitution
  • Certificate for two counsel
  • Warsaw Convention
  • Hague Protocol

15.2 Keywords

  • Singapore Airlines
  • Fujitsu
  • Warsaw Convention
  • Hague Protocol
  • Limitation of Liability
  • Offer to Settle
  • Costs
  • Interest
  • Refund

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Aviation Law
  • Contract Law

17. Areas of Law

  • Civil Procedure
  • Aviation Law
  • Contract Law