Marubeni v Projector SA: Interim Mandatory Injunction & Letters of Indemnity Dispute

In a dispute between Marubeni International Petroleum (S) Pte Ltd and Projector SA, the High Court of Singapore, presided over by Belinda Ang Saw Ean J, addressed Projector SA's application to discharge an interim mandatory injunction. The injunction had compelled Projector SA to secure the release of the vessel Dynamic Express. Marubeni sought to enforce its rights under two letters of indemnity. The court discharged the injunction, finding it was no longer necessary as the vessel had been released, but reserved the decision on costs and an inquiry into damages to the trial judge.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Interim mandatory injunction discharged; decision on costs and inquiry as to damages reserved to the trial judge.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Dispute over interim mandatory injunction granted to Marubeni against Projector SA regarding letters of indemnity and vessel arrest. Court discharged injunction, reserving costs and damages.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Marubeni International Petroleum (S) Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationInterim mandatory injunction dischargedPartial
Projector SADefendantCorporationInterim mandatory injunction dischargedPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Werner TsuDrew and Napier LLC
Kelvin PoonRodyk and Davidson
Govindarajalu AsokanRodyk and Davidson

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff sought to enforce rights under two letters of indemnity.
  2. Interim mandatory injunction was granted to compel defendant to secure release of vessel.
  3. Vessel was arrested in South Korea for delivery of gas oil without original bills of lading.
  4. Defendant applied to discharge the interim order, denying breach of the letters of indemnity.
  5. Security for the release of the vessel had already been deposited with the South Korean courts.
  6. The vessel has since been released.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Marubeni International Petroleum (S) Pte Ltd v Projector SA, Suit 1164/2003, SIC 7420/2003, [2004] SGHC 179

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Voyage sub-charter agreed between plaintiff and defendant.
Letter of indemnity issued by defendant to plaintiff.
Letter of indemnity issued by defendant to plaintiff.
First demand sent to the defendant.
M/s Kim & Chang sent a letter to the defendant explaining the only way to lift an arrest in South Korea was to post a cash deposit.
Defendant received letter from M/s Kim & Chang.
First fax sent by Drew & Napier LLC.
Defendant passed on first fax to its London office.
Drew & Napier LLC sent two further faxes.
Alternative proposal rejected.
Plaintiff demanded cash deposit.
Writ of summons issued.
Plaintiff received demand to post bail.
Interim mandatory injunction granted ex parte.
Defendant filed an application to discharge the interim order.
Interim mandatory injunction discharged.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Interim Mandatory Injunction
    • Outcome: The court discharged the interim mandatory injunction, finding it was no longer necessary.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Triable issues
      • Risk of injustice
  2. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court reserved the determination of whether the defendant breached its obligations under the letters of indemnity to the trial judge.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Obligations under letters of indemnity
      • Failure to provide security
  3. Costs
    • Outcome: The court reserved the decision on costs to the trial judge.
    • Category: Procedural
  4. Damages
    • Outcome: The court reserved the decision on an inquiry as to damages to the trial judge.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Specific Performance
  2. Damages
  3. Declaratory Judgment
  4. Inquiry as to damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Enforcement of Letters of Indemnity

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Arbitration

11. Industries

  • Petroleum
  • Shipping

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Tomongo Shipping Co Ltd v Heng Holdings SEA (Pte) LtdHigh CourtYes[1997] 2 SLR 550SingaporeCited regarding whether the interim order should have been granted because of the existence of triable issues.
Singapore Press Holdings Ltd v Brown Noel Trading Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[1994] 3 SLR 151SingaporeReaffirmed the principle that the strength of a party's case is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for the grant of an interlocutory mandatory injunction.
Chuan Hong Petrol Station Pte Ltd v Shell Singapore (Pte) LtdCourt of AppealYes[1992] 2 SLR 729SingaporeCited regarding the principle that the strength of a party's case is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for the grant of an interlocutory mandatory injunction.
Financiera Avenida SA v ShiblaqN/AYes[1991] TLR 21N/ACited regarding the questions that arise when a defendant seeks to enforce an undertaking in damages.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Interim mandatory injunction
  • Letters of indemnity
  • Dynamic Express
  • Security
  • Arrest of vessel
  • Bills of lading
  • Gas oil
  • Cash deposit

15.2 Keywords

  • injunction
  • contract
  • shipping
  • letter of indemnity
  • vessel arrest

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Injunctions85
Interim Mandatory Injunction80
Contract Law70
Letters of Indemnity65
Civil Procedure60
Damages50
Shipping Disputes40
Evidence30

16. Subjects

  • Injunctions
  • Contract Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Shipping Law