Sunrise Crane v Pristine: Negligence Claim for Damage from Contaminated Nitric Acid

In 2003, the High Court of Singapore heard a negligence claim by the owners of the vessel Pristine against Doman Shipping S.A., owners of the Sunrise Crane, for damages resulting from the discharge of contaminated nitric acid into the Pristine without warning. The Pristine suffered corrosion damage and consequential losses. The court found Doman Shipping negligent for failing to warn the Pristine of the dangerous nature of the cargo, leading to the damage. The court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs, ordering damages to be assessed by the Registrar.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for the Plaintiffs with costs and for damages to be assessed by the Registrar.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court held Doman Shipping negligent for discharging contaminated nitric acid into Pristine's vessel without warning, causing corrosion damage.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Doman Shipping SADefendantCorporationJudgment Against DefendantLost
PristinePlaintiffOtherJudgment for PlaintiffWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
John SeowRajah and Tann
Kelly YapRajah and Tann
Thomas TanHaridass Ho and Partners
Daryll NgHaridass Ho and Partners

4. Facts

  1. Pristine, a slop tanker, was to load "contaminated lubes" from Sunrise Crane.
  2. Sunrise Crane discharged contaminated nitric acid into Pristine's cargo tank.
  3. Yellowish fumes emanated from Pristine, and the deck became hot.
  4. Pristine listed to port, and the crew evacuated.
  5. Pristine capsized, with corroded holes in the hull.
  6. Defendants did not warn Plaintiffs of the dangerous nature of the nitric acid.
  7. Pink Energy issued a Works Order to Pristine Maritime describing the cargo as Annex I slops.

5. Formal Citations

  1. The "Sunrise Crane", Adm in Rem 600097/2001, [2003] SGHC 291

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Pristine built
Sunrise Crane built
Pristine extensively refurbished
Sunrise Crane discharged contaminated nitric acid into Pristine
Lloyd's Open Form 2000 signed
Pristine capsized
Spica received a copy of the MSDS for the shipment
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Duty of Care
    • Outcome: The court held that the Defendants breached their duty of care by failing to warn the Plaintiffs of the dangerous nature of the contaminated nitric acid.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to warn of dangerous nature of cargo
    • Related Cases:
      • [1932] AC 562
  2. Negligence
    • Outcome: The court found the Defendants negligent in discharging contaminated nitric acid into the Plaintiffs' vessel without warning.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1932] AC 562
  3. Limitation of Liability
    • Outcome: The court held that the Defendants were not entitled to limit their liability.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.361

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages for corrosion damage
  2. Consequential losses

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence
  • Breach of Duty of Care

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Admiralty Law

11. Industries

  • Shipping

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Donoghue v StevensonHouse of LordsYes[1932] AC 562England and WalesCited for the two-step test involving reasonable foreseeability of injury or harm and the establishment of a proximate relationship.
Marc Rich & Co AG v Bishop Rock Marine Co LtdHouse of LordsYes[1996] 1 AC 211England and WalesCited for the application of the threefold test to all tort cases, including those involving physical damage.
Mohd bin Sapri v Soil-Build (Pte) LtdCourt of AppealYes[1996] 2 SLR 505SingaporeCited for adopting the proposition in Marc Rich and applying the threefold test to a personal injury claim.
Hodge & Sons v Anglo-American Oil Company and D T Miller & CoCourt of AppealYes[1922] 12 Lloyd’s Law List Rep.183England and WalesCited for the principle that the obligation to take reasonable care is fulfilled by entrusting dangerous goods to a competent person with reasonable warning of its dangerous character.
Hodge & Sons v Anglo-American OilHouse of LordsYes[1923] 16 Lloyd’s List Law Rep. 61England and WalesCited for the legal position regarding the duty of owners of a barge carrying petrol to take precautions to prevent damage to people likely to come into contact with it.
Burfitt v A & E KilleN/AYes[1939] 2 All ER 372N/ACited for the principle that a warning is not a sufficient discharge of the duty of care if the person to whom the dangerous article or substance is delivered is not a competent person.
Hoey v Hardie and AnorN/AYes[1912] 12 SRNSW 268New South WalesCited for the principle that there is no need for further communication if a person knows the dangerous nature of the goods.
Caparo Industries Plc v DickmanHouse of LordsYes[1990] 2 AC 605England and WalesCited for the threefold test to establish a duty of care.
Governors of the Peabody Donation Fund v Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Co LtdHouse of LordsYes[1985] AC 210England and WalesCited for the principle that a relationship of proximity must exist before any duty of care can arise.
Beckett v Newalls Insulation Company Ltd and Lightfoot Refrigeration Company LtdN/AYes[1953] 1 WLR 8N/ACited for the principle that the law applicable to dangerous goods is the law of negligence.
The Volvox HollandiaN/AYes[1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.361N/ACited regarding limitation of liability and the responsibility of the directing mind of a company.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Merchant Shipping ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Contaminated nitric acid
  • Ship-to-ship transfer
  • Duty of care
  • Reasonable foreseeability
  • Proximity
  • Material safety data sheet
  • Annex I slops
  • Works Order
  • Novus actus interveniens

15.2 Keywords

  • negligence
  • contaminated nitric acid
  • shipping
  • duty of care
  • maritime law
  • Sunrise Crane
  • Pristine

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Dangerous Goods95
Negligence90
Torts80
Admiralty and Maritime Law70
Shipping Law70
Marine Accidents60
Ship-to-ship transfer operation60
Personal Injury60
Contract Law30
Contracts20
Breach of Contract20

16. Subjects

  • Tort Law
  • Maritime Law
  • Negligence
  • Shipping
  • Dangerous Goods