AP Moller-Maersk v Special Entertainment: Interpleader, Cargo Claims & Storage Charges

AP Moller-Maersk A/S and Maersk Singapore Pte Ltd initiated an interpleader action in the Court of Appeal of Singapore to resolve conflicting claims to a cargo of "Star Trek" themed exhibition articles stored at the Port of Singapore Authority (PSA) godown. The dispute arose from disagreements among Special Entertainment Events, Inc and others regarding entitlement to the cargo, leading to accumulating storage charges. The court, presided over by Chao Hick Tin JA, dismissed the appeal against an interim order requiring the shipowner to pay outstanding storage charges upfront, subject to security being furnished by the respondents, with a slight variation to include finance costs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed with slight variation to order below.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Shipowner's interpleader action to determine conflicting cargo claims. The court addressed responsibility for accumulating storage charges pending claim resolution.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
OthersRespondentCorporationSuccessful Resistance of AppealWon
AP Moller-Maersk A/S (trading as Maersk Sealand)AppellantCorporationAppeal DismissedLost
Maersk Singapore Pte LtdAppellantCorporationAppeal DismissedLost
Special Entertainment Events, IncRespondentCorporationSuccessful Resistance of AppealWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of AppealYes
Lai Kew ChaiJudgeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Kenny YapAllen and Gledhill
Jainil BhandariRajah and Tann
Wendy TanHaq and Selvam
Leona WongAllen and Gledhill
Michael LaiHaq and Selvam
Govintharasah s/o RamanathanGurbani and Co
Stephanie WongGurbani and Co

4. Facts

  1. Appellants' vessels carried cargo to Singapore.
  2. Disputes arose among respondents regarding cargo entitlement.
  3. Cargo was stranded at PSA godown, accruing storage charges.
  4. Appellants filed interpleader summons to determine entitlement.
  5. Judge ordered appellants to pay storage charges upfront.
  6. Security was to be furnished by respondents.
  7. Appellants appealed against the order.

5. Formal Citations

  1. AP Moller-Maersk A/S (trading as Maersk Sealand) and Another v Special Entertainment Events, Inc and Others, CA 105/2004, [2005] SGCA 6

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Agreement entered into between first and second respondents and sixth respondent to purchase the goods at a price of US$2.5m.
Soroe Maersk vessel arrived in Singapore.
Sine Maersk vessel arrived in Singapore.
Interpleader summons came before Lai Siu Chiu J.
Further arguments heard; deadline extended to 2004-11-09.
Appeal heard and dismissed.
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Interpleader
    • Outcome: The court upheld the use of interpleader to resolve conflicting claims to the cargo.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Conflicting claims to cargo
      • Determination of entitlement
  2. Liability for Storage Charges
    • Outcome: The court determined that the shipowner could be required to pay storage charges upfront, with security provided by the respondents.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Responsibility for accumulating storage costs
      • Shipowner's lien on cargo

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Determination of cargo entitlement
  2. Payment of freight, demurrage, and storage charges

9. Cause of Actions

  • Interpleader

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Shipping Litigation

11. Industries

  • Shipping
  • Logistics

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Booth Steamship Company, Limited v Cargo Fleet Iron Company, LimitedKing's Bench DivisionYes[1916] 2 KB 570England and WalesCited regarding the respondents' obligation to pay storage charges to the PSA to obtain delivery of the cargo.
Harley v GardnerN/AYes(1932) 43 Ll L Rep 104N/ACited to support the principle that a shipowner has a lien over cargo for freight and necessary storage charges.
BP Benzin und Petroleum AG v European-American Banking CorporationN/AYes[1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 364N/ACited for the court's inherent jurisdiction to make just orders in interpleader proceedings, even if it interferes with parties' rights.
Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd v Procter & Gamble (Philippines) IncN/AYes[1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 341N/ACited as a case with similar facts regarding interpleader and storage charges, but distinguished due to the absence of opposing claims.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Merchant Shipping Act (Cap 179, 1996 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Interpleader
  • Lien
  • Storage charges
  • Cargo
  • Bill of lading
  • Security
  • Freight
  • Demurrage
  • PSA godown

15.2 Keywords

  • Interpleader
  • Cargo
  • Shipping
  • Storage charges
  • Singapore
  • Commercial dispute

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Shipping Law80
Civil Practice75
Admiralty and Maritime Law70
Contract Law60
Commercial Disputes60
Commercial Law50
Bailment40
Arbitration30
Costs20
Estoppel20

16. Subjects

  • Shipping
  • Civil Procedure
  • Commercial Law