SMIT Land v Nacap: Dispute over Jurisdiction Clause in Rig Hire Contract

In SMIT Land & Marine Engineering (Far East) Pte Ltd v Nacap Drilling Sdn Bhd, the Singapore High Court heard an appeal against the assistant registrar's decision to dismiss the defendants' application for a stay of proceedings. The application was based on an alleged choice of law and jurisdiction clause in favour of the United Kingdom. The dispute arose from a contract for the hire of a 'Directional Drilling Rig No. 4'. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the defendants had not accepted the proposal containing the UK jurisdiction clause. The court noted that the defendants could apply for a stay on the ground of forum non conveniens.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case between SMIT Land and Nacap Drilling over a jurisdiction clause in a rig hire contract. The court dismissed the stay application.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
SMIT Land & Marine Engineering (Far East) Pte LtdPlaintiff, RespondentCorporationAppeal dismissedLost
Nacap Drilling Sdn BhdDefendant, AppellantCorporationAppeal dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Thio Ying YingKelvin Chia Partnership
Lim Siew KhimKelvin Chia Partnership
Mark LimWork & Leow LLC

4. Facts

  1. Smit UK owned a 'Directional Drilling Rig No. 4'.
  2. Smit UK hired the rig to the defendants for two months.
  3. The defendants were given an option by Smit UK to renew the hire.
  4. The rig was sold to Smit International (Singapore) Pte Ltd.
  5. Smit International (S) Pte Ltd hired the rig to the plaintiffs.
  6. The defendants retained physical possession of the rig after the initial hire contract expired.
  7. Negotiations for a fresh contract were conducted between the defendants and the plaintiffs' representatives.
  8. A proposal for hire was sent to the defendants, which stated that the contract would be subject to SLME Standard Conditions.

5. Formal Citations

  1. SMIT Land & Marine Engineering (Far East) Pte Ltd v Nacap Drilling Sdn Bhd, Suit 216/2001, RA 146/2001, [2001] SGHC 268

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Hire of rig commenced between Smit UK and the defendants.
Defendants enquired about renewal of hire.
Hire contract between Smit UK and the defendants expired.
Smit International (S) Pte Ltd hired the rig to the plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs' representative sent an electronic mail to the defendant company.
Defendants sent a formal 'Proposal For Hire' to the plaintiffs.
Appeal dismissed.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Choice of Law and Jurisdiction Clause
    • Outcome: The court found that there was no evidence that the defendants had accepted the UK jurisdiction clause.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Stay of Proceedings

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Marine Engineering
  • Drilling

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
No cited cases

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

  • Directional Drilling Rig
  • Choice of Law Clause
  • Jurisdiction Clause
  • Standard Conditions
  • Proposal For Hire
  • Stay of Proceedings
  • Forum non conveniens

15.2 Keywords

  • contract
  • jurisdiction
  • stay of proceedings
  • Singapore
  • High Court
  • rig hire

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Contract Law80
Jurisdiction75
Choice of Law65
Breach of Contract60
Forum Non Conveniens50

16. Subjects

  • Contract Dispute
  • Jurisdiction
  • Civil Litigation