The Patraikos 2: Cargo Damage Claim - Breach of Hague Rules & Seaworthiness
42 plaintiffs, shippers of cargo on the Patraikos 2, sued Chester Shipping Co Ltd in the High Court of Singapore on 2002-05-09, for damages to their cargo after the vessel grounded. The plaintiffs claimed the defendants breached their duties under the Hague Rules by failing to ensure the vessel's seaworthiness and proper manning. The defendants argued the grounding was due to the negligence of the second officer and claimed general average contributions. The court found the defendants failed to exercise due diligence in ensuring the vessel's seaworthiness and the second officer's competence, thus disallowing their reliance on the Hague Rules' exceptions and dismissing their counterclaim. The court allowed the plaintiffs' claim.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Admiralty
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Cargo shippers sue for damages after the Patraikos 2 grounding. Court addresses seaworthiness, manning, and Hague Rules exceptions. Claim allowed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| shippers of cargo | Plaintiff | Other | Claim Allowed | Won | Leong Kah Wah, Navinder Singh, Aileen Boey |
| Chester Shipping Co Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Counterclaim Dismissed | Lost | Haridass Ajaib, Augustine Liew, Kueh Ping Yang |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lai Siu Chiu | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Leong Kah Wah | Joseph Tan Jude Benny |
| Navinder Singh | Joseph Tan Jude Benny |
| Aileen Boey | Joseph Tan Jude Benny |
| Haridass Ajaib | Haridass Ho & Partners |
| Augustine Liew | Haridass Ho & Partners |
| Kueh Ping Yang | Haridass Ho & Partners |
4. Facts
- Plaintiffs were shippers of cargo loaded on board the ship Patraikos 2 from various European ports.
- The vessel's owners are Chester Shipping Co Ltd, and her managers are Dioryx Maritime Corp.
- The vessel was time-chartered to Rickmers-Line GMBH.
- The vessel ran aground on the rocks of Horsburgh Lighthouse in the Singapore Straits.
- The owners declared general average as a result of the casualty.
- The plaintiffs and their underwriters executed Lloyd`s Average Bonds or Average Guarantees.
- The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants failed to exercise due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy.
5. Formal Citations
- The Patraikos 2, Adm in Rem 81/1996, [2002] SGHC 103
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| The vessel was built in Belgium. | |
| Dioryx Maritime Corp became the managers of the vessel. | |
| The vessel was time-chartered to Rickmers-Line GMBH. | |
| The vessel was dry-docked at Rotterdam for maintenance and repairs. | |
| The vessel sailed from Genoa. | |
| The vessel left Penang heading south for Map Ta Phut (Thailand). | |
| The vessel ran aground on the rocks of Horsburgh Lighthouse. | |
| The owners declared general average. | |
| Salvors discharged cargo into barges which were towed to Singapore’s Jurong Commercial Wharf. | |
| The vessel was refloated. | |
| The vessel was delivered to Sembawang Shipyard and drydocked. | |
| The remaining steel cargo was discharged and landed at Sembawang Shipyard. | |
| Salvors discharged cargo into barges which were towed to Singapore’s Jurong Commercial Wharf. | |
| Repairs to the vessel were completed. | |
| The plaintiffs arrested the vessel. | |
| The vessel left Singapore for Manila. | |
| Clancey, Sons & Stacey issued a General Average Report. | |
| Clancey, Sons & Stacey issued an Addendum to the General Average Report. | |
| Judgment was delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Hague Rules
- Outcome: The court found that the defendants breached their duties under the Hague Rules by failing to ensure the vessel's seaworthiness and proper manning.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to exercise due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy
- Failure to properly man the vessel
- Failure to properly store, carry and discharge the cargo
- Seaworthiness of Vessel
- Outcome: The court found the vessel was unseaworthy due to severe corrosion, particularly in her bulkheads.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Corrosion of bulkheads
- Fitness of cargo holds
- Manning Requirement
- Outcome: The court found the defendants failed to exercise due diligence in ensuring the second officer's competence.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Competence of second officer
- Due diligence in hiring crew
- Title to Sue
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiffs had title to sue.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Holder of bill of lading
- Consignee of cargo
- General Average Contribution
- Outcome: The court found that the defendants were not entitled to their counterclaim for general average loss and salvage expenses.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Sacrifice or expenditure to avert danger
- Actionable wrong
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Negligence
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Admiralty
- Shipping
11. Industries
- Shipping
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Shravan | unknown | Yes | [1999] 4 SLR 197 | Singapore | Cited for the submission that the plaintiffs had title to sue. |
| The Aliakmon | unknown | Yes | [1986] 2 Lloyd`s Rep 1 | England and Wales | Cited to establish that unless the plaintiffs had legal ownership of, or possessory title to the cargo at the time of the loss or damage, they cannot sue for negligence. |
| The Muncaster Castle | unknown | Yes | [1959] 2 Lloyd`s Rep 553 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the obligation to exercise due diligence under art III para 1 is personal to the defendants and they cannot delegate that duty to agents. |
| The Farrandoc | Canadian court | Yes | [1967] 2 Lloyd`s Rep 276 | Canada | Cited as an analogy where the court found the shipowners had failed to exercise due diligence in not checking that the second engineer was inexperienced. |
| The Makedonia | unknown | Yes | [1962] 1 Lloyd`s Rep 316 | unknown | Cited where the allegation of unseaworthiness against the vessel was, inter alia, grounded on the carrier's appointment of incompetent and/or inexperienced chief and other engineers. |
| The MV Kantang | unknown | Yes | [1971] 1 MLJ 183 | Malaysia | The facts here are a far cry from those in The MV Kantang [1971] 1 MLJ 183 which case the defendants relied on. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (Cap 33, 1998 Ed) | Singapore |
| Bills of Lading Act (Cap 384, 1994 Ed) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Hague Rules
- Seaworthiness
- Due diligence
- General average
- Bills of Lading Act
- Lloyd's Average Bonds
- Traffic Separation Scheme
- Parallel indexing
- ARPA
- Salvage
15.2 Keywords
- Admiralty
- Shipping
- Carriage of Goods by Sea
- Hague Rules
- Unseaworthiness
- Negligence
- Singapore
- Cargo Damage
16. Subjects
- Admiralty
- Shipping
- Carriage of Goods
- Negligence
- Contract Law
17. Areas of Law
- Admiralty Law
- Shipping Law
- Carriage of Goods by Sea