Sumitomo Corporation v Alexandrea: Admiralty Jurisdiction, Action in Rem, and Arrest of Vessel
In Sumitomo Corporation (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Alexandrea, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the arrest of the vessel "ALEXANDREA." Sumitomo, a marine fuel oil supplier, alleged the vessel supplied contaminated fuel that damaged another ship, "FRONT MELODY." The court, on 23 April 2002, allowed the appeal, setting aside the writ of summons and warrant of arrest, finding that the claim did not fall within the scope of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed; Writ of Summons and warrant of arrest set aside.
1.3 Case Type
Admiralty
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court addressed admiralty jurisdiction in an action in rem against the vessel Alexandrea, focusing on requirements for vessel arrest.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sumitomo Corporation (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Sin Lye Kuen, Candice Kwok |
| J S Pink Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Appeal Allowed | Won | LD Dason |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Sin Lye Kuen | Khattar Wong & Partners |
| Candice Kwok | Khattar Wong & Partners |
| LD Dason | Steven Lee, Dason & Partners |
4. Facts
- Sumitomo Corporation (Singapore) Pte Ltd was a party in the chain of contracts for the supply of marine fuel oil (MFO).
- Sumitomo Corporation Europe PLC (SCEP) was the immediate buyer from the Plaintiffs.
- Meridian Petroleum and Bunkering Pte Ltd purportedly supplied MFO to FRONT MELODY.
- The MFO allegedly stemmed from the ALEXANDREA, a bunker tanker owned by J S Pink Pte Ltd.
- The MFO was allegedly contaminated with Di-methyl Ester of Hexabedioic acid.
- FRONT MELODY suffered loss or damage due to the contaminated bunkers.
- Sumitomo commenced an in rem action against the ALEXANDREA in negligence.
5. Formal Citations
- The Alexandrea, Adm in Rem 600090/2002, RA 600032/2002, [2002] SGHC 82
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Meridian purportedly supplied MFO to FRONT MELODY at Singapore. | |
| Plaintiffs commenced an in rem action against the ALEXANDREA in negligence. | |
| The ALEXANDREA was arrested. | |
| Defendants’ application for the warrant of arrest to be set aside was filed. | |
| Defendants’ filed Notice to Appeal. | |
| Decision Date. |
7. Legal Issues
- Admiralty Jurisdiction
- Outcome: The court held that it did not have admiralty jurisdiction over the claim.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Conditions for bringing action in rem
- Scope of High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act
- Wrongful Arrest
- Outcome: The court found no evidence of malicious intent to support a claim for damages for wrongful arrest.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages
- Indemnification
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
10. Practice Areas
- Admiralty Jurisdiction
- Action in Rem
- Arrest of Vessel
11. Industries
- Shipping
- Oil and Gas
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The "Ohm Marina" | High Court | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR 623 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court of Singapore is statutory and the conditions for instituting in rem proceedings against a ship are laid down by the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act. |
| The "Opal 3" | High Court | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR 585 | Singapore | Cited for the test to establish an action within the in rem jurisdiction of the Court. |
| The "Indriani" | Unknown | No | [1996] 1 SLR 305 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of the words 'arising out of' to mean 'connected with'. |
| The "Trade Fair" | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR 827 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that some provisions of section 3(1) of the Act were given a wide and liberal construction. |
| Alexander G Tsavliris & Sons Maritime Co v Keppel Corp Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR 113 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that some provisions of section 3(1) of the Act were given a wide and liberal construction. |
| The "Antonis P Lemos" | House of Lords | Yes | [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 283 | United Kingdom | Cited in relation to s 20(2) of the 1981 Act that the words ‘arising out of’ should apply to all the maritime claims and that these words should be construed as having the meaning ‘connected with’. |
| The "Sydney Sunset" | Federal Court of Australia | Yes | [2001] FCA 210 | Australia | Cited for the principle that the words 'in respect of' and 'in relation to' are words of extension concerning the expression 'a claim' and therefore it is not appropriate that the definitions be read in any unduly narrow or restricted sense. |
| The "Kommunar" (No 1) | Unknown | Yes | [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the words 'in respect of' are wide words and should not be unduly restricted. |
| The "Edinburgh Castle" | Unknown | Yes | [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 363 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the words 'in respect of' are wide words and should not be unduly restricted. |
| The "Nore Challenger" and "Nore Commander" | Unknown | Yes | [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 103 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the word 'goods' was construed to include the supply or provision of crew. |
| The "River Rima" | House of Lords | Yes | [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 193 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the provision applied only where the goods or materials are 'supplied' to a ship which is identified either in the supply contract or prior to its performance. |
| The "Lloyd Pacifico" | Unknown | Yes | [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 54 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that to bring an action in rem, the contract of carriage must relate to an identifiable ship. |
| The "River Rima" | Unknown | Yes | [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 107 | United Kingdom | Cited to decide whether par. (m) of the Administration of Justice Act 1956 covered a claim for damages for conversion in respect of containers that were leased to the owners of the River Rima and damages for breach of clause 8 of the lease agreement. |
| The "Eschersheim" | Unknown | Yes | [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that to be liable to arrest a ship must not only be the property of the defendant to the action but must also be identifiable as the ship in connection with which the claim made in the action arose (or a sister ship of that ship). |
| The "Permina 108" | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1975-1977] SLR 221 | Singapore | Cited for the fundamental rule for the arrest of a ship under the Act in respect of certain classes of maritime claims, namely pars. (d) to (q) of s 3 (1) was not confined to just sister ships in common beneficial ownership with the primary ship in respect of which the claim arose but was available against any ship owned by a charterer liable in respect of a maritime claim. |
| The "Span Terza" | Unknown | Yes | [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 225 | United Kingdom | Cited in reading of sub-section 4(a). |
| The "Tychy" | Unknown | Yes | [1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 11 | United Kingdom | Cited for the same approach as The "Permina 108". |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Action in rem
- Admiralty jurisdiction
- Arrest of vessel
- Marine fuel oil
- Contamination
- Beneficial ownership
- In respect of
- A ship
15.2 Keywords
- Admiralty jurisdiction
- Action in rem
- Arrest of vessel
- Marine fuel oil
- Contamination
16. Subjects
- Admiralty
- Shipping
17. Areas of Law
- Admiralty Law
- Shipping Law