The 'Bonito' v The 'Ah Lam II': Collision Claim & Extension of Time for Damages Assessment

In The 'Bonito' v The 'Ah Lam II', the Court of Appeal of Singapore addressed an appeal concerning a collision between the vessels 'Bonito' and 'Ah Lam II'. Following the collision, the respondents commenced an admiralty action. After an offer to settle was made and accepted, a dispute arose regarding the time for filing a reference to the registrar for assessment of damages. The court dismissed the appeals, finding that the action was not dismissed and that the judge properly exercised his discretion in granting an extension of time.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeals dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Admiralty

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Collision case where the Court of Appeal addressed whether an action was dismissed due to failure to file a reference to the registrar and whether an extension of time should be granted.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
The 'Bonito'AppellantOtherAppeal DismissedLost
The 'Ah Lam II'RespondentOtherExtension of Time GrantedWon
'Pu 1804'RespondentOtherExtension of Time GrantedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJudge of AppealYes
L P TheanJudge of AppealNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Kelly YapRajah & Tann
Colin SeahRajah & Tann
Danny ChuaJoseph Tan Jude Benny Anne Choo
Mohd Goush MarikanJoseph Tan Jude Benny Anne Choo
Tan Hui HsingJoseph Tan Jude Benny Anne Choo

4. Facts

  1. A collision occurred between the vessels 'Bonito' and 'Ah Lam II' on 28 January 1992.
  2. The respondents commenced an admiralty action against the appellants.
  3. The appellants made an offer to settle, which the respondents accepted.
  4. A pre-trial conference resulted in an unless order for the respondents to file a notice of discontinuance or a notice for assessment of damages.
  5. The respondents applied for and were granted extensions of time to file the reference to the registrar.
  6. The appellants argued that the action was dismissed due to the respondents' failure to comply with the unless order.
  7. The respondents applied for a further extension of time, which was initially dismissed but later allowed on appeal.

5. Formal Citations

  1. The 'Bonito' v The 'Ah Lam II', CA 100/2000, CA 101/2000, [2001] SGCA 31

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Collision between the 'Bonito' and the 'Ah Lam II'
Admiralty action commenced by respondents against appellants
Appellants served offer to settle on respondents
Appellants confirmed they had no claim against respondents
Respondents gave notice of acceptance of the offer to the appellants
Pre-trial conference held; unless order issued
Respondents delivered statement of claim to appellants
Respondents applied for an extension of time
Extension of time granted to 19 October 1997
Appellants requested further information and documents
Respondents filed application for further extension of time
Respondents provided further information and documents
Respondents complied with appellants request for further information and documents
Time extended to 30 November 1997 for filing reference to registrar
Appellants requested further information and documents
Appellants informed respondents that the action had been dismissed
Respondents submitted revised breakdown of claim
Appellants asserted that the action had been dismissed
Respondents filed reference to registrar for assessment of damages
Appellants applied to strike out the reference to registrar
Assistant registrar granted order to strike out reference to registrar
Respondents filed application for extension of time
Assistant registrar dismissed application for extension of time
Appeals heard before Lim Teong Qwee JC; both appeals allowed

7. Legal Issues

  1. Extension of Time
    • Outcome: The court held that the judge properly exercised his discretion in granting the extension of time, considering the lack of prejudice to the appellants.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Delay in application
      • Prejudice to other party
  2. Unless Order
    • Outcome: The court held that the unless order made on 27 March 1997 did not remain in force after the extensions of time were granted, and the action was not dismissed.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Validity of unless order
      • Effect of subsequent orders on unless order

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence
  • Admiralty Claim

10. Practice Areas

  • Admiralty
  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • Shipping

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Hitachi Sales (U.K.) Ltd v Mitsui OSK Lines LtdEnglish Court of AppealYes[1986] 2 Lloyds Rep 574England and WalesCited regarding the strict approach to unless orders, specifically that the order must be unambiguous and specify the time limit from a starting time.
The Tokai MaruCourt of AppealYes[1998] 3 SLR 105SingaporeCited for the principle that a litigant should not be deprived of the opportunity to dispute claims due to a procedural default unless the other party has suffered prejudice that cannot be compensated by costs.
Costellow v Somerset County CouncilCourt of AppealYes[1993] 1 WLR 256England and WalesCited for the principle that a litigant should not be deprived of the opportunity to dispute claims due to a procedural default unless the other party has suffered prejudice that cannot be compensated by costs.
Leong Mei Chuan v David Chan Teck HockCourt of AppealYes[2001] 2 SLR 17SingaporeCited for the principle that a litigant should not be deprived of the opportunity to dispute claims due to a procedural default unless the other party has suffered prejudice that cannot be compensated by costs.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Collision
  • Admiralty action
  • Unless order
  • Extension of time
  • Reference to registrar
  • Assessment of damages
  • Settlement
  • Prejudice

15.2 Keywords

  • Collision
  • Admiralty
  • Shipping
  • Extension of time
  • Damages
  • Singapore
  • Court of Appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Admiralty and Maritime Law90
Civil Practice60
Civil Litigation50
Damages50
Contract Law40
Breach of Contract40
Arbitration30
Evidence Law30
Property Law20

16. Subjects

  • Admiralty
  • Civil Procedure
  • Shipping
  • Litigation