Pan-United Shipyard Pte Ltd v The “Dilmun Fulmar”: Arrest of Vessel After Settlement Agreement Dispute

Pan-United Shipyard Pte Ltd, the Plaintiff, sued Castle Shipping Company Limited, the Defendant, in the High Court of Singapore, regarding ship repair services. After the initial arrest of the vessel “Dilmun Fulmar”, a settlement agreement was reached, but the Defendant defaulted on payments. The Plaintiff re-arrested the vessel, which had changed ownership and name to “Hailisen”. Hailisen Shipping Co Ltd intervened. The court dismissed the Plaintiff's appeal, finding the re-arrest wrongful and an abuse of process, as the Plaintiff was attempting to enforce the settlement agreement under the guise of the original claim.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiffs’ appeal dismissed and Defendants’ appeal allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Admiralty

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Pan-United Shipyard re-arrested the “Dilmun Fulmar” after a settlement agreement breach. The court set aside the warrant, holding the re-arrest was wrongful and an abuse of process.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Hailisen Shipping Co LtdIntervenersCorporationAppeal AllowedWon
Pan-United Shipyard Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationAppeal DismissedLost
Castle Shipping Company LimitedDefendantCorporationAppeal AllowedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Wendy TanHaq and Selvam
Michael LaiHaq and Selvam
Gerald YeeJoseph Tan Jude Benny

4. Facts

  1. Pan-United Shipyard repaired the “Dilmun Fulmar” in October-November 1999.
  2. Castle Shipping initially paid $650,000 for repairs, leaving a balance of $770,822.28.
  3. Pan-United commenced an in rem action and arrested the vessel on 12 August 2001.
  4. A Settlement Agreement was reached on 14 August 2001 for $310,000.
  5. Castle Shipping defaulted on two instalments totaling $170,000.
  6. Pan-United re-arrested the vessel, renamed “Hailisen”, on 29 July 2002.
  7. The Statement of Claim sought payment of $170,000 and contractual interest.

5. Formal Citations

  1. The "Dilmun Fulmar", Adm in Rem 600215/2001, [2003] SGHC 270

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Repairs to “Dilmun Fulmar” commenced
Repairs to “Dilmun Fulmar” completed
Tax invoice PAN99/0440 issued
Outstanding balance of $770,822.28
In rem action commenced against “Dilmun Fulmar”
“Dilmun Fulmar” arrested
Settlement Agreement reached
“Dilmun Fulmar” released from arrest
Change of ownership of vessel
Change of ownership of vessel
“Dilmun Fulmar” re-arrested
Plaintiffs’ solicitors faxed that the sum due is $170,000
“Dilmun Fulmar” released upon provision of security
Statement of Claim amended
Ng Sing Chan affirmed an affidavit
Decision date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Admiralty Jurisdiction and Arrest
    • Outcome: The court held that the re-arrest was wrongful and an abuse of the court process.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Wrongful Arrest
      • Abuse of Court Process
  2. Breach of Settlement Agreement
    • Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiffs affirmed the Settlement Agreement despite the breach, precluding recourse to the original claim.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Renunciation of Settlement Agreement
      • Repudiatory Breach
  3. Construction and Effect of Settlement Agreement
    • Outcome: The court construed the Settlement Agreement as an immediate binding compromise of the original claim, with the possibility of reviving former rights upon breach.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Interpretation of Clause 10
      • Compromise of Original Claim

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Arrest of Vessel

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Action in rem

10. Practice Areas

  • Admiralty
  • Shipping
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Shipping

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Green v Rozen & OrsN/AYes[1955] 1 WLR 741N/ACited for the principle that a settlement agreement gives rise to a new cause of action, requiring a fresh action to be started to sue on the compromise.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
High Court Admiralty Jurisdiction Act (Cap. 123)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Settlement Agreement
  • In rem action
  • Writ of Summons
  • Warrant of Arrest
  • Repudiatory breach
  • Admiralty jurisdiction
  • Wrongful arrest

15.2 Keywords

  • Admiralty
  • Shipping
  • Settlement Agreement
  • Arrest of Vessel
  • Wrongful Arrest

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Admiralty and Maritime Law90
Arrest of Vessel90
Ship Repair80
Settlement Agreement75
Contract Law70
Breach of Contract70
Wrongful arrest60
Jurisdiction50
Damages50
Submission to Jurisdiction30
Estoppel30
Renunciation30
Repudiatory breach30
Civil Procedure30
Mala Fide20
Summary Judgement20
Affirmation20

16. Subjects

  • Admiralty
  • Shipping
  • Contract Law
  • Civil Procedure