Uni-Fruitveg Suppliers v Hyundai Fortune: Stay of Action & Choice of Jurisdiction

In Uni-Fruitveg Suppliers v Hyundai Fortune, the Singapore High Court heard an appeal regarding the stay of an admiralty action. Uni-Fruitveg Suppliers, the plaintiff, claimed damages for damaged hami-melons shipped from China to Singapore on the Hyundai Fortune. The defendant, EMF International SA, owners of the Hyundai Fortune, sought a stay of the Singapore action in favor of the Seoul Civil District Court in Korea, based on a jurisdiction clause in the bill of lading. Belinda Ang Saw Ean J allowed the appeal, refusing to stay the action, citing strong connecting factors to Singapore and the defendant's failure to demonstrate a real dispute or arguable defense to the claim.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Admiralty

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court refused to stay action in favor of Korean jurisdiction clause in bill of lading, citing strong connecting factors to Singapore.

1.7 Decision Date

29 February 2004

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Uni-Fruitveg Suppliers	Plaintiff	Corporation	Appeal Allowed	Won	Liew Teck Huat of Niru and Co
EMF International SA	Defendant	Corporation	Stay Application Denied	Lost	Bazul Ashhab bin Abdul Kader of T S Oon and Bazul

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw Ean	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Liew Teck Huat	Niru and Co
Bazul Ashhab bin Abdul Kader	T S Oon and Bazul

4. Facts

Uni-Fruitveg Suppliers imported 1,473 cartons of hami-melons from China.
The hami-melons were shipped to Singapore in a reefer container.
Upon arrival, 1,232 cartons of hami-melons were found badly damaged.
Plaintiffs claimed the damage was due to the defendants' failure to maintain the required temperature.
The bill of lading contained a clause stipulating that disputes be resolved in the Seoul Civil District Court.
The Partlow chart showed the reefer container did not maintain the pre-set temperature of 3°C throughout the transit.
The plaintiffs submitted a claim for US$8,396.92 for their losses and expenses.

5. Formal Citations

The Hyundai Fortune, Adm in Rem 169/2003/K, RA 374/2003/H, [2004] SGHC 45

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2002-07-07	Hami-melons arrived in Singapore; some found badly damaged.
2002-07-09	Hyundai Merchant Marine (S) Pte Ltd notified of cargo damage and called for a joint survey.
2002-08-21	Plaintiffs submitted a claim for losses and expenses to Hyundai Merchant Marine (S) Pte Ltd.
2002-12-07	M/s Niru & Co wrote to Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd in Korea regarding the damage and loss.
2003-03-08	M/s Niru & Co sent a reminder regarding the claim.
2003-07-02	Plaintiffs issued in rem proceedings.
2003-07-19	Hyundai Fortune arrested.
2003-07-21	Vessel released from arrest upon security being furnished.
2003-07-24	Appearance entered on behalf of the owners of the vessel.
2003-08-07	Plaintiffs filed and served their statement of claim.
2003-08-15	Defendants suggested the claim should be brought in Seoul.
2003-08-20	Defendants filed their stay application.
2003-10-13	Assistant registrar granted a stay of this action.
2003-11-20	Appeal allowed against the decision of the assistant registrar.
2004-03-01	Decision published.

7. Legal Issues

Choice of Jurisdiction
- Outcome: The court held that a stay of the Singapore action should not be granted in favor of Korea.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Exclusive jurisdiction clause
  - Stay of action
  - Strong cause
- Related Cases:
  - [1975–1977] SLR 258
  - [2004] 1 SLR 6
  - [1994] 2 SLR 526

8. Remedies Sought

Damages for loss and damage to the consignment of hami-melons

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Negligence

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Admiralty Litigation

11. Industries

Shipping
Food and Beverage

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Amerco Timbers Pte Ltd v Chatsworth Timber Corp Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1975–1977] SLR 258	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court would grant a stay of action in aid of the jurisdiction clause unless strong cause exists to warrant a refusal to stay the proceedings.
Golden Shore Transportation Pte Ltd v UCO Bank	N/A	Yes	[2004] 1 SLR 6	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court would grant a stay of action in aid of the jurisdiction clause unless strong cause exists to warrant a refusal to stay the proceedings.
The Eastern Trust	N/A	Yes	[1994] 2 SLR 526	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court has to take a cumulative approach and give each circumstance due weight.
The Hung Vuong-2	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] 3 SLR 146	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court was entitled to look into an alleged defence to see whether there was any real substance in it.
The Asian Plutus	N/A	Yes	[1990] SLR 543	Singapore	Cited to illustrate the point that location of witnesses, and the need for interpreters and for documents to be translated into Korean language were all neutral factors.
Baghlaf Al Zafer Factory Co BR For Industry Ltd v Pakistan National Shipping Co	N/A	Yes	[1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 229	N/A	Cited regarding costs being disproportionate to the size of the claim.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Reefer container
Hami-melons
Bill of lading
Jurisdiction clause
Stay of action
Partlow chart
Strong cause
Contract of carriage

15.2 Keywords

Admiralty
Shipping
Conflict of Laws
Jurisdiction Clause
Stay of Action
Hami-melons
Reefer Container

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Choice of jurisdiction	85
Private International Law	80
Shipping Law	75
Admiralty and Maritime Law	75
Bills of Lading	70
Carriage of goods by sea	65
Contract Law	60
Breach of Contract	50
Commercial Law	50

16. Subjects

Admiralty
Shipping
Conflict of Laws
Choice of Jurisdiction