Jet Holding v Cooper Cameron: Breach of Contract & Negligence in Slip Joint Refurbishment

In Jet Holding Ltd and Others v Cooper Cameron (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Another, the Singapore High Court addressed claims of breach of contract and negligence following the failure of a refurbished slip joint on the drill ship Energy Searcher. Jet Holding Ltd (JHL), Jet Shipping Ltd (JSL), Jet Drilling (S) Pte Ltd (JDL), and Maurel Et Prom (MEP) sued Cooper Cameron (Singapore) Pte Ltd (Cameron) and Stork Technology Services Asia Pte Ltd (Stork) for losses incurred. The court found Cameron liable for breach of contract and negligence in the slip joint's refurbishment, and Stork concurrently liable for negligence. The court awarded US$1 million for the lost Blow Out Preventor (BOP) and nominal damages for other claims, with Cameron entitled to a 50% indemnity from Stork. MEP's claim was dismissed due to unproven assignment.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiffs in part; Cameron to indemnify Stork for 50% of damages.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case involving a fractured slip joint on a drill ship, addressing breach of contract, negligence, and title to sue.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Jet Holding LtdPlaintiffCorporationJudgment for Plaintiff in partPartial
Jet Shipping LtdPlaintiffCorporationJudgment for Plaintiff in partPartial
Jet Drilling (S) Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationNo title to sueLost
Maurel Et PromPlaintiffCorporationNo locus standiLost
Cooper Cameron (Singapore) Pte LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment against Defendant in partPartial
Stork Technology Services Asia Pte LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment against Defendant in partPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Randhir Ram ChandraHaridass Ho and Partners
Nicole TanHaridass Ho and Partners
Prem GurbaniGurbani and Co
Bernard YeeGurbani and Co
Tan Teng MuanMallal and Namazie
Wong Khai LengMallal and Namazie

4. Facts

  1. A slip joint on the Energy Searcher fractured during installation on 16 March 2001.
  2. The fractured slip joint had been refurbished by Cooper Cameron and Stork.
  3. The wall of the RCK box in the fractured slip joint was found to be too thin.
  4. VDH had identified a deficiency in the wall thickness of the RCK box before it was sent to Stork.
  5. Cameron failed to provide Stork with necessary drawings for the refurbishment.
  6. Stork did not perform a dimensional inspection of the RCK box.
  7. The Energy Searcher was sold shortly after the incident.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Jet Holding Ltd and Others v Cooper Cameron (Singapore) Pte Ltd and Another, Suit 1523/2002, [2005] SGHC 149

6. Timeline

DateEvent
JSL purchased the Energy Searcher.
Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit inspection carried out on the Energy Searcher.
Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit inspection carried out on the Energy Searcher.
JDL made a contract with Cairn Energy India Pty Limited.
Kim Heng Marine & Oil Field Pte Ltd collected the standby slip joint from Stork’s premises.
Spare slip joint returned to the Energy Searcher.
Cameron issued Certificate of Compliance.
JDL made a contract with Cairn Energy India Pty Limited.
The Energy Searcher arrived off Chennai, India.
Pre-installation inspection was carried out on the spare slip joint.
Spare slip joint fractured during installation.
Svoboda visited the drill ship to inspect the slip joint.
Share sale and purchase agreement between MEP and Splendour III Corporation.
Slip joint salvaged.
Deeds of assignment were issued.
Slip joint arrived in Singapore.
Suit 1523/2002 filed.
First inspection of fractured slip joint by Dr Sykes.
Second inspection of fractured slip joint by Dr Sykes.
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found Cameron in breach of implied terms to exercise reasonable care and skill in the refurbishment of the slip joint.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Implied terms
      • Exercise of reasonable care and skill
  2. Negligence
    • Outcome: The court found both Cameron and Stork liable in negligence for the failure of the slip joint.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Breach of duty of care
      • Causation
      • Contributory negligence
  3. Title to Sue
    • Outcome: The court determined which parties had the right to bring the claims.
    • Category: Procedural
  4. Admissibility of Evidence
    • Outcome: The court ruled on the admissibility of various documents tendered as evidence.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Documentary evidence
      • Proof of contents
      • Computer-generated documents

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Replacement cost of equipment
  3. Loss of future income

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Negligence
  • Breach of Warranty
  • Negligent Misstatement

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Construction Law
  • Performance Bonds

11. Industries

  • Construction
  • Oil and Gas

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Leigh and Sillavan Ltd v Aliakmon Shipping Co LtdN/AYes[1986] AC 785N/ACited for the principle that only a person with legal ownership or possessory title can sue in negligence for damages.
The WinkfieldN/AYes[1902] P 42N/ACited for the principle that a bailee in possession can recover for loss or damage to the bailor's property.
Alfred McAlpine Construction Ltd v Panatown LtdN/AYes[2001] 1 AC 518N/ACited for the principle that a bailee must account to the bailor for the proceeds of the bailed item.
Caparo Industries Plc v DickmanN/AYes[1990] 2 AC 605N/ACited for the threefold test to determine the existence of a duty of care.
Governors of the Peabody Donation Fund v Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Co LtdN/AYes[1985] AC 210N/ACited for the approach to determine if a duty of care was owed to the plaintiff.
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners LtdN/AYes[1964] AC 465N/ACited for the principle of liability in damages for negligent misstatement and pure economic loss.
Trollope & Colls Ltd v North West Metropolitan Regional Hospital BoardN/AYes[1973] 2 All ER 260N/ACited for the test to be applied in considering whether it is necessary or appropriate to imply terms in a contract.
Energy Shipping Co Ltd v UDL Shipping (Singapore) Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[1995] 3 SLR 25SingaporeCited for the test to be applied in considering whether it is necessary or appropriate to imply terms in a contract.
Henderson v Merrett Syndicates LtdN/AYes[1995] 2 AC 145N/ACited for the principle that a duty of care in tort is no more than co-extensive with the contractual obligation.
The Jian HeN/AYes[2000] 1 SLR 8N/ACited for the view that where concurrent liability in tort and contract exists, the plaintiff has the right to assert the cause of action that appears to be the most advantageous to him.
Man B&W Diesel S E Asia Pte Ltd v PT Bumi International TankersN/ANo[2004] 2 SLR 300N/ADistinguished on the facts; cited regarding the duty of care in tort claims where a contract exists.
Donoghue v StevensonN/AYes[1932] AC 562N/ACited in relation to extending the principle of duty of care.
Hogan v Bentinck West Hartley Collieries (Owners) LtdN/AYes[1949] 1 All ER 588N/ACited for the principle that the question of whether a later act broke the chain of causation could only be answered on a consideration of all the circumstances.
Fong Maun Yee v Yoong Weng Ho RobertCourt of AppealYes[1997] 2 SLR 297SingaporeCited for the principle that where a defendant’s liability in contract was concurrent with an identical duty in tort, the defence of contributory negligence was available to the defendant.
Forsikringsaktieselskapet Vesta v ButcherN/AYes[1989] AC 852N/ACited for the principle that where a defendant’s liability in contract was concurrent with an identical duty in tort, the defence of contributory negligence was available to the defendant.
Deutz Far East (Pte) Ltd v Pacific Navigation Co Pte LtdN/AYes[1989] SLR 926N/ACited for the principle that a mere tender of even the original document is not enough.
KPM Khidmat Sdn Bhd v Tey Kim SuieN/AYes[1994] 2 MLJ 627N/ACited for the principle that a document does not by itself prove the matter expressed therein.
Popular Industries Limited v Eastern Garment Manufacturing Sdn BhdN/AYes[1989] 3 MLJ 360N/ACited for the principle that the oral evidence of the accountant and the sheet of calculations were inadmissible.
Central Bank of India v Hemant Govindprasad BansalN/AYes[2002] 3 SLR 190N/ACited for the principle that there must at least be some evidence to establish the conditions in s 32.
Sim & Associates v Tan AlfredN/AYes[1994] 3 SLR 169N/ACited for the principle that there must at least be some evidence to establish the conditions in s 32.
Chong Khee Sang v Pang Ah CheeN/AYes[1984] 1 MLJ 377N/ACited for the principle that it is the duty of counsel engaged in a case to see that the documentary evidence upon which he relies is properly tendered in court and proved.
The Maersk ColomboN/AYes[2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 275N/ACited for the principle that on proof of tortuous destruction (including loss) of a chattel, the owner is prima facie entitled to damages reflecting the market value of the chattel “as is”.
Ali Reza-Delta Transport Co Ltd v United Arab Shipping CoN/AYes[2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 450N/ACited for the principle that market value had to be assessed at the time and place where the equipment was destroyed or lost.
Voaden v ChampionN/AYes[2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 623N/ACited for the principle that in a case where there is no market and one is dealing with second hand chattels, the judge had erred in not giving the replacement value for the lost pontoon.
Lim Mong Hong v PPN/AYes[2003] 3 SLR 88N/ARecognises that proof of the two conditions in s 35(1)(c) of the Evidence Act by a certificate pursuant to s 35(6) of the Act is not the only mode of proof of proper use and operation of the computer.
Regina v ShepherdN/AYes[1993] AC 380N/AWhilst Roche and Sheed were users of the subsea computers, I am not satisfied on the evidence that they would qualify as someone who is fully familiar with “the operation of the computer in the sense of knowing what the computer is required to do and who can say that it is doing it properly

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Slip joint
  • RCK box
  • Refurbishment
  • Wall thickness
  • Dimensional inspection
  • Certificate of Compliance
  • Blow Out Preventor
  • Energy Searcher
  • OEM
  • Machining

15.2 Keywords

  • breach of contract
  • negligence
  • slip joint
  • refurbishment
  • construction
  • oil and gas
  • Singapore High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Breach of Contract75
Contract Law70
Negligence65
Refurbishment Contract60
Torts60
Evidence50
Documentary evidence50
Ship Management45
Implied Terms40
Shipping Law40

16. Subjects

  • Construction Dispute
  • Contract Law
  • Negligence
  • Civil Procedure