Pan United Shipping v Cendrawasih Shipping: Liability for Lost Cargo & Demise Charter

Pan United Shipping Pte Ltd sued Cendrawasih Shipping Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore on 23 February 2004, for damages due to the loss of a cargo of steaming coal. Cendrawasih claimed they were not liable because the vessels involved were demise chartered to PT Armada Arung Samudra. Justice Tan Lee Meng ruled that the vessels had not been demise chartered and found in favor of Pan United, holding Cendrawasih liable for the loss.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Admiralty

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Pan United sued Cendrawasih for lost cargo. Court ruled Cendrawasih was liable, rejecting their claim of demise charter to PT Armada.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Pan-United Shipping Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationJudgment for PlaintiffWon
Cendrawasih Shipping Pte LtdDefendantCorporationClaim DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tan Lee MengJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Gan Seng CheeAng and Partners
Goh Wee LingAng and Partners
Ramesh AppooJust Law LLC
Brij Raj RaiJust Law LLC

4. Facts

  1. Pan United was the lawful holder of a bill of lading for a cargo of steaming coal.
  2. The cargo was shipped on board Cendrawasih’s barge, ASP-1, towed by the tug Samudra Perkasa II.
  3. The vessels encountered bad weather and ran aground, resulting in the loss of the cargo.
  4. Pan United claimed damages of US$246,729.78 for the lost cargo.
  5. Cendrawasih claimed the vessels were demise chartered to PT Armada at the time of the incident.
  6. Cendrawasih did not inform Pan United of the alleged demise charter until after the claim against PT Armada was time-barred.
  7. Two different versions of the demise charterparty dated 19 July 2000 were presented to the court.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Pan United Shipping Pte Ltd v Cendrawasih Shipping Pte Ltd, Adm in Per 600075/2002, [2004] SGHC 32

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Cargo shipped from Bengkulu, Indonesia to Kantang, Thailand
Vessels ran aground, and cargo was lost
Cendrawasih filed their defence
Cendrawasih claimed the vessels were demise chartered to PT Armada
Court ordered preliminary issues to be determined
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Whether shipowners were proper parties to be sued
    • Outcome: The court held that the shipowners were the proper parties to be sued.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Whether the vessels were demise chartered to third parties
    • Outcome: The court held that the vessels were not demise chartered to third parties.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Admiralty Litigation
  • Shipping Litigation
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Shipping

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Pacol Ltd v Trade Lines Ltd (The Henrik Sif)N/AYes[1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 456N/ACited regarding the unconscionability of relying on a demise charterparty to avoid liability when the other party was not informed of the charterparty before their claim became time-barred.
The Stolt LoyaltyN/AYes[1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 598N/ACited regarding the unconscionability of relying on a demise charterparty to avoid liability when the other party was not informed of the charterparty before their claim became time-barred.
Baumwoll Manufactur von Scheibler v Gilchrest & CoN/AYes[1892] 1 QB 253N/ACited for the principle that a demise charter occurs when the shipowner parts with the whole possession and control of the ship.
D’Almeida v GrayN/AYes(1856) 1 Kyshe 109Straits SettlementsCited for the principle that mere words of letting and hiring do not necessarily constitute a demise charter if other provisions of the contract indicate otherwise.
Baumwoll Manufactur von Carl Scheibler v Christopher FurnessN/AYes[1893] AC 8N/ACited for the principle that restrictions on the use of a vessel do not necessarily prevent a charterparty from being a demise charter.
Boustead v ClarkeN/AYes(1835) Straits Law Reports 391N/ACited as an indication that the charterparty, if entered into, is not one by demise when the shipowner assumes obligations which ought to have been assumed by the charterer under a demise charterparty

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

  • Demise charter
  • Bill of lading
  • Steaming coal
  • Unseaworthiness
  • Time-barred
  • Bare Boat Carrier Contract

15.2 Keywords

  • Admiralty
  • Shipping
  • Demise Charter
  • Cargo Loss
  • Singapore
  • Pan United
  • Cendrawasih

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Carriage of goods by sea95
Admiralty and Maritime Law90
Shipping Law90
Contract Law60

16. Subjects

  • Admiralty
  • Shipping
  • Charterparty
  • Commercial Dispute