Schaar & Niemeyer v Acrux Shipping: Arrest of Vessel for Failure to Pay, Admiralty Jurisdiction
In Schaar & Niemeyer (Far East) Pte Ltd v Acrux Shipping Ltd, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Acrux Shipping Ltd to set aside an in rem writ against their vessel, the Acrux, for failure to pay for goods and materials. The plaintiff, Schaar & Niemeyer (Far East) Pte Ltd, arrested the vessel. The defendant argued that the claim had been paid and that there was a failure of full disclosure in the ex parte application for arrest. Justice Belinda Ang dismissed the appeal, upholding the Senior Assistant Registrar's decision, finding that the plaintiff's claim fell within admiralty jurisdiction and that the plaintiff was entitled to security for costs, even after the defendant made a payment under protest.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Admiralty
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court addresses the arrest of the 'Acrux' for unpaid goods, affirming admiralty jurisdiction and the right to security for costs despite payment under protest.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Schaar & Niemeyer (Far East) Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Won | |
| Acrux Shipping Ltd | Defendant, Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Plaintiff claimed defendant failed to pay for goods and materials supplied to the Acrux.
- Plaintiff commenced in rem proceedings against the Acrux.
- Plaintiff learned of the sale of the Acrux and her delivery to the new owner.
- Defendant failed to make payment by the agreed deadline.
- Plaintiff arrested the Acrux.
- Defendant made part payment and later paid shortfall and interest under protest.
- Defendant applied to set aside the arrest.
5. Formal Citations
- The "Acrux", Adm in Rem 57/2004, RA 221/2004, [2004] SGHC 198
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff commenced in rem proceedings against the Acrux. | |
| Defendant gave instructions to its bankers to remit payment to the plaintiff. | |
| In rem writ was served. | |
| Plaintiff received part payment of $50,955.23. | |
| Affidavit in support of arrest filed. | |
| Arrest warrant issued and executed. | |
| Defendant filed application to set aside the arrest. | |
| Defendant made payment of the shortfall and interest under protest. | |
| Vessel released from arrest. | |
| Decision of the High Court. |
7. Legal Issues
- Admiralty Jurisdiction
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff's claim fell within the admiralty jurisdiction.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Claim within admiralty jurisdiction
- Arrest of vessel
- Wrongful Arrest
- Outcome: The court found that there was no basis for a claim of wrongful arrest.
- Category: Substantive
- Duty of Disclosure
- Outcome: The court found that there was no failure to make full and frank disclosure in the plaintiff’s affidavit.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Full and frank disclosure in ex parte application
- Payment Under Protest
- Outcome: The court held that a payment under protest does not end the proceedings and the validity of the claim still remains a direct issue between the parties.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of in rem writ
- Damages for wrongful arrest
9. Cause of Actions
- Failure to pay for goods and materials supplied
10. Practice Areas
- Admiralty
- Shipping
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Shipping
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The St Elefterio | N/A | Yes | [1957] P 179 | N/A | Cited for the standard of proof required in an application to set aside an arrest of a vessel. |
| The Rainbow Spring | N/A | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR 362 | Singapore | Cited for the standard of proof required in an application to set aside an arrest of a vessel and the importance of full and frank disclosure being made on an ex parte application. |
| The Chikuma | N/A | No | [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 371 | N/A | Cited regarding the point at which the plaintiff obtains an immediate and unconditional right to use of money. |
| People’s Park Development Pte Ltd v Tru-Mix Concrete (Pte) Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1980–1981] SLR 223 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that the court has power to award interest on a debt which was paid after commencement of proceedings. |
| The Hamburg Star | N/A | Yes | [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 399 | N/A | Cited regarding the type of claim which is within the Admiralty jurisdiction by reference to the remedy sought. |
| Maskell v Horner | N/A | Yes | [1915] 3 KB 106 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a payment under protest does not end the matter. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Action in rem
- Arrest of vessel
- Admiralty jurisdiction
- Payment under protest
- Full and frank disclosure
- Security for costs
15.2 Keywords
- Admiralty
- Shipping
- Arrest
- Vessel
- Payment
- Jurisdiction
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Admiralty and Maritime Law | 95 |
| Arrest of Vessel | 95 |
| Breach of Contract | 60 |
| Contract Law | 50 |
| Evidence Law | 40 |
| Civil Procedure | 30 |
| Evidence | 30 |
| Civil Litigation | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Admiralty
- Shipping
- Civil Procedure