Hub Warrior v QBE Insurance: Negligence, Marine Insurance & Rectification

Hub Warrior Sdn Bhd sued QBE Insurance (Malaysia) Bhd in the High Court of Singapore on 28 December 2004, claiming RM4,911,418.94 for damage to the Saipan Leader's crankshaft, alleging negligence by the chief engineer under a marine insurance policy. QBE denied the negligence and claimed wear and tear was the proximate cause. Hub Warrior also sought rectification of the policy's deductible amount. Belinda Ang Saw Ean J dismissed Hub Warrior's claim, finding no proof of negligence and no basis for rectification.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Hub Warrior sues QBE Insurance for failing to cover crankshaft damage. The court dismissed the claim, finding no negligence and denying rectification.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Hub Warrior Sdn BhdPlaintiffCorporationClaim DismissedLostKenneth Tan SC, Joseph Tan, Tan Hong Liang
QBE Insurance (Malaysia) BhdDefendantCorporationJudgment for DefendantWonLim Tean, Shem Khoo, Probin Dass

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Kenneth Tan SCKenneth Tan Partnership
Joseph TanKenneth Tan Partnership
Tan Hong LiangKenneth Tan Partnership
Lim TeanRajah and Tann
Shem KhooRajah and Tann
Probin DassRajah and Tann

4. Facts

  1. Hub Warrior owned the vessel Saipan Leader, insured with QBE.
  2. The Saipan Leader experienced low lubricating oil pressure on 24 July 2001.
  3. The no 5 crankpin bearing failed, and white metal debris was found.
  4. The chief engineer attempted on-board repairs.
  5. The engine was restarted but stopped again due to a knocking sound and low oil pressure.
  6. Technicians found heat cracks and high hardness on the crankpin.
  7. The crankshaft was condemned and had to be replaced.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Hub Warrior Sdn Bhd v QBE Insurance (Malaysia) Bhd, Suit 1260/2002, [2004] SGHC 279

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Saipan Leader built.
Alleged oral agreement reached between Lui and Chee over luncheon.
Confirmation slip sent advising total loss cover for two vessels.
Saipan Leader sailed from India.
First incident: low lubricating oil pressure and automatic shutdown of the main engine.
Second incident: replacement bearing failed, engine stopped manually.
Technicians from Goltens Singapore Pte Ltd and a representative of the engine manufacturers attended on board the vessel.
Chief engineer signed off the Saipan Leader.
Suit filed (Suit 1260/2002).
Judgment delivered.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Negligence
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the chief engineer's negligence caused the damage to the crankpin.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Rectification of Contract
    • Outcome: The court denied rectification, finding no antecedent agreement conflicting with the written contract.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Causation
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a causal link between the chief engineer's actions and the damage to the crankpin.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Rectification of Contract

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Insurance Litigation
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Shipping
  • Insurance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
The Popi MN/ANo[1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1N/ACited for the principle that the plaintiff must prove the loss or damage was caused by negligence within the policy during its currency.
Palamisto General Enterprises SA v Ocean Insurance Co LtdN/ANo[1972] 2 QB 625N/ACited for the principle that the defendant can challenge the assured on each point.
La Compania Martiartu v The Corporation of the Royal Exchange AssuranceN/AYes[1923] 1 KB 650N/ACited for the principle that if the court is doubtful about the real cause of the loss, the assured has failed to prove their case.
Leyland Shipping Company, Limited v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society, LimitedN/AYes[1918] AC 350N/ACited for the definition of proximate cause as the efficient operating factor upon the result.
American Airlines Inc v HopeN/AYes[1974] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 301N/ACited for the principle that rectification is available where parties intended to reproduce the terms of an agreement in a formal document but used inapt words.
The Demetra KN/AYes[2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581N/ACited for the requirements for rectification, including the need for a common accord and convincing evidence of a common mistake.
Thomas Bates & Sons Ltd v Wyndham’s (Lingerie) LtdN/AYes[1981] 1 WLR 505N/ACited for the principle that convincing proof is required to counteract the evidence of the parties’ intention displayed by the written instrument.
Wilsher v Essex Area Health AuthorityN/ANo[1987] QB 730N/ACited for the principle that the standard of care is that of a person holding the rank of chief engineer.
Multi-Pak Singapore Pte Ltd v Intraco LtdN/AYes[1992] 2 SLR 793N/ACited for the principle that a court cannot make a finding on material facts which have not been pleaded.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Marine Insurance ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Crankpin
  • Crankshaft
  • Lubricating Oil
  • Marine Insurance
  • Negligence
  • Rectification
  • Wear and Tear
  • Proximate Cause
  • Ovality
  • Bearing Failure

15.2 Keywords

  • marine insurance
  • negligence
  • rectification
  • crankshaft
  • singapore
  • shipping

16. Subjects

  • Marine Insurance
  • Contract Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Tort

17. Areas of Law

  • Civil Procedure
  • Contract Law
  • Marine Insurance
  • Tort Law