Evergreen International SA v Volkswagen Group: Anti-Suit Injunction & Limitation of Liability in Collision Case

In Evergreen International SA v Volkswagen Group Singapore Pte Ltd, the Singapore High Court addressed whether to grant an anti-suit injunction to restrain cargo interests and insurers from pursuing an action in Belgium against "Ever Reach", a sister ship of "Ever Glory". The collision between "Ever Glory" and "Hual Trinita" occurred in Singapore waters. Evergreen International S.A., the owners of both vessels, commenced a limitation action in Singapore and obtained a limitation decree. The defendants, cargo interests, sought to pursue their claims in Belgium, where a higher limitation regime applied. The court granted the anti-suit injunction, finding Singapore to be the natural forum and the Belgium proceedings vexatious and oppressive.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiffs' application for an injunction restraining the Defendants from continuing with proceedings in Belgium granted.

1.3 Case Type

Admiralty

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court granted an anti-suit injunction, preventing cargo interests from pursuing a Belgium action after a Singapore limitation decree.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Volkswagen Group Singapore Pte LtdDefendantCorporationApplication to set aside the Order for service of the Originating Summons out of jurisdiction is dismissedLost
Evergreen International SAPlaintiffCorporationApplication for injunction grantedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Adrian TanRajah and Tann
Steven Chong SCRajah and Tann
S MohanGurbani and Co
Richard KwekGurbani and Co

4. Facts

  1. Collision occurred in Singapore territorial waters between "Ever Glory" and "Hual Trinita".
  2. Plaintiffs, Evergreen International S.A., owned both "Ever Glory" and "Ever Reach".
  3. Defendants were cargo interests and insurers of cargo on board "Hual Trinita".
  4. Plaintiffs commenced a limitation action in Singapore and obtained a limitation decree.
  5. Defendants commenced action in Belgium seeking a higher limitation regime under the 1976 Convention.
  6. Plaintiffs furnished security in the sum of US$18.3 million to secure the release of the “Ever Reach” from arrest.
  7. The Singapore court declared that the Plaintiffs’ liability is to be limited to the sum of S$2,411,227.56 plus interest.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Evergreen International SA v Volkswagen Group Singapore Pte Ltd and Others, OS 1853/2000, [2003] SGHC 142

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Collision between "Ever Glory" and "Hual Trinita" in Singapore territorial waters.
Plaintiffs commenced an in rem action against "Hual Trinita" in Singapore.
Plaintiffs commenced a limitation action in Singapore.
Plaintiffs' solicitors informed the Defendants' representatives of the limitation action.
Plaintiffs reached a settlement on liability with the owners of "Hual Trinita".
Agreement on liability was filed in the Registry.
Defendants tried to arrest the "Ever Glory" in the Netherlands.
Owners of "Hual Trinita" withdrew their objections to challenge the Plaintiffs’ right to limit.
Singapore court granted the Plaintiffs a decree of limitation.
"Ever Reach" was arrested in Belgium.
Plaintiffs applied to the Singapore court to determine tonnage limitation.
Owners of "Hual Trinita" withdrew their objection to the tonnage calculation.
Plaintiffs obtained a declaration that their liability is limited to S$2,411,227.56 plus interest.
Plaintiffs paid into court S$2,411,227.56 plus interest.
Plaintiffs failed at first instance before the Belgium court to set aside the arrest.
Plaintiffs appealed against the Belgium court's decision.
Appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in Belgium.
Plaintiffs appealed to the Cour De Cassation.
Justice Tan Lee Meng dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claims in the Originating Summons against the 1st and 2nd Defendants.
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Anti-Suit Injunction
    • Outcome: The court granted the anti-suit injunction, restraining the Defendants from continuing proceedings in Belgium.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Jurisdiction over the Defendants
      • Natural forum for resolution of the dispute
      • Vexation or oppression to the Plaintiffs
      • Injustice to the Defendants
  2. Limitation of Liability
    • Outcome: The court upheld the Plaintiffs' right to limit liability in Singapore and found the Defendants' actions in pursuing a higher limit in Belgium to be vexatious.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Significance of limitation decree
      • Constitution of limitation fund
      • Choice of forum for limitation action
  3. Jurisdiction
    • Outcome: The Defendants’ application to set aside the Order for service of the Originating Summons out of jurisdiction is dismissed.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Service out of jurisdiction
      • Setting aside service

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Anti-Suit Injunction
  2. Restraining Order

9. Cause of Actions

  • Tort
  • Maritime Claim

10. Practice Areas

  • Admiralty
  • Shipping
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Shipping

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Kui JakPrivy CouncilYes[1987] 1 AC 871United KingdomCited for the principles upon which the jurisdiction to grant anti-suit injunction may be exercised.
Bank of America National Trust & Savings Association v Djoni WidjajaCourt of AppealYes[1994] 2 SLR 816SingaporeCited for adopting the principles enunciated in Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Kui Jak regarding anti-suit injunctions.
Koh Kay Yew v Inno-Pacific Holdings LtdCourt of AppealYes[1997] 3 SLR 121SingaporeCited for re-affirming the principles enunciated in Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Kui Jak regarding anti-suit injunctions.
British Airways Board v Laker Airways LtdHouse of LordsNo[1985] 1 AC 58United KingdomCited for the principle that an anti-suit injunction is to be exercised when the ends of justice require it and the establishment of an equity or equities which will ground the grant of injunctive relief.
Donohue v Armco IncNot AvailableYes[1999] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 649Not AvailableCited for the approach that the outcome of the Defendants’ application to set aside the Order for service of the Originating Summons out of jurisdiction is dependent on whether or not the Plaintiffs succeed in obtaining injunctive relief against the Defendants.
People’s Insurance Co Ltd v Akai Pty LtdNot AvailableNo[1998] 1 SLR 206SingaporeReferred to regarding the court's consideration of whether the injunction would be an effective remedy against the Defendants.
The Sea HawkNot AvailableNo[1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 317Not AvailableReferred to regarding the court's consideration of whether the injunction would be an effective remedy against the Defendants.
E.D.& F. Man (Sugar) Ltd v Yani Haryanto (No.2)Not AvailableYes[1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 429Not AvailableCited for the principle that it is not part of the amenability test that consideration be given as to whether or not the injunction could be enforced.
The Tropaioforos (No.2)Not AvailableYes[1962] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 410Not AvailableCited for the principle that once a defendant was properly served under Order 11 r 1, the court has jurisdiction to grant an injunction against him in precisely the same way as against a person within the jurisdiction.
In re Liddell’s Settlement TrustsNot AvailableYes[1936] 1 CH 365Not AvailableCited for the principle that the court is not to be deterred from granting an injunction where it is appropriate in the circumstances of a particular case to do so.
Castanho v Brown & Root (UK) LtdHouse of LordsYes[1981] AC 557United KingdomCited for the principle that the court is not to be deterred from granting an injunction where it is appropriate in the circumstances of a particular case to do so.
South Bucks District Council v Porter and AnotherHouse of LordsYes[2003] UKHL 26United KingdomCited for the principle that apprehension that a party may disobey an order should not deter the court from making an order otherwise appropriate.
Airbus Industrie G.I.E v Patel & OrsHouse of LordsYes[1999] 1 AC 119United KingdomCited for the principle that the court may be willing to grant an application of such a nature, if Singapore is shown to be the natural forum for the resolution of disputes between the parties.
The Abidin DaverHouse of LordsYes[1984] AC 398United KingdomCited for defining natural forum as “that with which the action had the most real and substantial connection.”
Eng Liat Kiang v Eng Bak HernCourt of AppealYes[1995] 3 SLR 97SingaporeCited for adopting the definition of natural forum as “that with which the action had the most real and substantial connection.”
The AlbaforthEnglish Court of AppealYes[1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 91EnglandCited for the principle that the place where the tort was committed is prima facie the natural forum for the determination of the dispute.
The Happy FellowNot AvailableYes[1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 130Not AvailableCited for the principle that either Convention envisages a single limitation fund against which all possible claims arising out of the collision would be brought.
Turner v Grovit & OrsNot AvailableYes[2002] 1WLR 107Not AvailableCited for explaining that the power to make the restraining order is dependent upon there being wrongful (“unconscionable”) conduct of the party to be restrained of which the applicant is entitled to complain and has a legitimate interest in seeking to prevent.
The FalstriaNot AvailableYes[1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 495Not AvailableCited for explaining that the essence of limitation action is that the plaintiffs in that action seek a decree, which is valid against all possible claimants, that a limit is set upon the eventual liability of the plaintiffs to all those claimants.
The Volvox HollandiaNot AvailableYes[1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 361Not AvailableCited for the principle that a limitation decree not set aside is good against the world.
Caspian Basin Specialised Emergency Salvage Administration & Anor v Bouygues Offshore SA & Ors (No. 4)Not AvailableYes[1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 507Not AvailableCited for the proposition that it would be wrong for a claimant to seek to usurp a shipowner’s choice of forum for his limitation action by seeking a negative declaration in the liability action to the effect that the shipowner is not entitled to limit.
Bouygues Offshore SA v Caspian Shipping Co & OrsCourt of AppealYes[1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 461EnglandCited for upholding the decision in Caspian Basin Specialised Emergency Salvage Administration & Anor v Bouygues Offshore SA & Ors (No. 4) that it is not for the liability claimant to choose the forum for limitation, but for the shipowner who seeks to limit.
The BowbelleNot AvailableYes[1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 532Not AvailableCited for the suggestion that the Plaintiffs could enforce their rights by filing an appropriately worded caveat against arrest.
South Carolina Insurance Co v Assurantie Maatschappij “de Zeven Provincien” N.V.House of LordsYes[1987] AC 24United KingdomCited for the grant of injunction in two situations: (a) when one party to an action can show that the other party has invaded or threatens to invade a legal or equitable right of the former; and (b) where one party to an action has behaved, or threatens to behave, in a manner which is unconscionable.
The Herceg NoviNot AvailableYes[1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 454Not AvailableCited for the principle that jurisdiction could often be obtained by arresting a ship in a 1976 country, and if that action were allowed to proceed despite there being a more appropriate forum where 1957 prevailed, the 1957 country would be left with no effective use for its own law.
Caltex Singapore Pte Ltd v BP Shipping LtdNot AvailableNo[1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 286Not AvailableCited for the argument that the higher limit in England was not a legitimate advantage since it was merely the obverse to a disadvantage to BP.
The Bramley MooreNot AvailableYes[1964] P 200Not AvailableCited for the principle underlying limitation of liability is that the wrongdoer should be liable according to the value of his ship and no more.
The Wladyslaw LokietekNot AvailableYes[1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 520Not AvailableCited for the principle that the arrest and security provided to secure the release of the “Ever Reach” was consistent with the principle in The Wladyslaw Lokietek.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 70 r 34 of the Rules of Court
Order 11 r 1
Order 11 r 2(1)(d)
Order 11 r 2(2)
Order 15 r 16

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Merchant Shipping Act (Cap. 179)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Anti-suit injunction
  • Limitation action
  • Limitation decree
  • Limitation fund
  • Natural forum
  • Vexatious
  • Oppressive
  • 1957 Convention
  • 1976 Convention
  • Collision
  • Sister ship
  • Cargo interests

15.2 Keywords

  • Admiralty
  • Shipping
  • Collision
  • Limitation action
  • Anti-suit injunction
  • Singapore
  • Belgium
  • Evergreen
  • Volkswagen

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Admiralty and Maritime Law90
Shipping Law90
Anti-suit injunction90
Jurisdiction70
Civil Procedure40
Civil Litigation40
International Trade Law30
Torts30
Contract Law30
Contracts30
Arbitration30
Foreign Law30
International Commercial Law30
Constitutional Law20
Corporate Litigation20

16. Subjects

  • Admiralty and Shipping
  • Civil Procedure
  • Conflict of Laws