Treasure Valley Group Ltd v Saputra Teddy: Admiralty Jurisdiction, Vessel Arrest & Approbation/Reprobation
In Treasure Valley Group Ltd v Saputra Teddy, the Singapore High Court addressed an appeal against the arrest of the vessel Seeker I. Treasure Valley Group Ltd, the plaintiff, initiated an in rem action for possession against Saputra Teddy and Michael Hatcher, the defendants, with Ultramarine Holdings Ltd as the intervener. The court, presided over by Justice Belinda Ang Saw Ean, dismissed the appeal, holding that the defendants' actions constituted approbation and reprobation of the arrest, precluding their challenge. The court also addressed the issue of whether a claim for damages for wrongful arrest could be pursued without setting aside the arrest.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed. The court ruled that the defendants had adopted inconsistent attitudes, thus barring them from challenging the arrest.
1.3 Case Type
Admiralty
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court case concerning the arrest of a vessel and whether the defendants' conduct amounted to approbation and reprobation of the arrest.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Treasure Valley Group Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeal dismissed | Lost | Lim Tean, Kendall Tan |
| Saputra Teddy | Defendant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Won | Lawrence Teh, Andrea Chee, Sun Ru-Shi |
| Hatcher Michael | Defendant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Won | Lawrence Teh, Andrea Chee, Sun Ru-Shi |
| Ultramarine Holdings Limited | Intervener | Corporation | Appeal dismissed | Won | Lawrence Teh, Andrea Chee, Sun Ru-Shi |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lim Tean | Rajah and Tann |
| Kendall Tan | Rajah and Tann |
| Lawrence Teh | Rodyk and Davidson |
| Andrea Chee | Rodyk and Davidson |
| Sun Ru-Shi | Rodyk and Davidson |
4. Facts
- Treasure Valley Group Ltd sought possession of the vessel Seeker I.
- The Seeker I was arrested on 25 October 2004.
- An application to set aside the arrest was made on 15 December 2004.
- The assistant registrar refused to set aside the arrest on 12 April 2005.
- The defendants were granted liberty to treat crew wages as part of the Sheriff's expenses.
- The defendants did not object to the sale of the ship pursuant to the arrest.
- The Seeker I was purchased using funds of or procured by USSSIL.
5. Formal Citations
- Treasure Valley Group Ltd v Saputra Teddy and Another (Ultramarine Holdings Ltd, intervener), Adm in Rem 211/2004, RA 96/2005, [2005] SGHC 217
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Seeker I was arrested | |
| Sheriff was granted liberty to appoint agents for preservation of Seeker I | |
| Defendants granted liberty to make payments to crew as part of Sheriff's expenses | |
| Application to set aside arrest was made | |
| Plaintiff applied for sale of vessel pendente lite | |
| Assistant registrar refused to set aside the arrest | |
| Appeal against assistant registrar’s decision was filed | |
| Defendants informed the court they were not objecting in principle to the sale | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Admiralty Jurisdiction and Arrest
- Outcome: The court found that the arrest was moot due to the sale of the vessel and that the defendants were precluded from challenging the arrest due to approbation and reprobation.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Material non-disclosure
- Wrongful arrest
- Approbation and Reprobation
- Outcome: The court held that the defendants' conduct in seeking benefits from the arrest (e.g., payment of crew wages as Sheriff's expenses) while simultaneously challenging the arrest constituted approbation and reprobation, barring their challenge.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Possession of vessel
- Setting aside of arrest
- Damages for wrongful arrest
9. Cause of Actions
- Claim for possession of vessel
- Wrongful Arrest
10. Practice Areas
- Admiralty
- Shipping
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Shipping
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Rainbow Spring | High Court | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR 362 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a Warrant of Arrest may be set aside for material non-disclosure. |
| The Damavand | High Court | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR 717 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the obligation of candour relates to facts material for the court to know in deciding whether to issue the Warrant of Arrest. |
| The Nordglimt | Queen's Bench | Yes | [1988] 1 QB 183 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a further affidavit should be filed once a mistake is discovered or the circumstances upon which the court order was made have changed. |
| Tay Long Kee Impex Pte Ltd v Tan Beng Huwah | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR 750 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it must be a special case for the court to exercise its discretion not to discharge an ex parte injunction where there has been suppression of material facts. |
| The Fierbinti | High Court | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR 864 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court has a discretion whether or not to set aside the warrant of arrest notwithstanding proof of material non-disclosure. |
| The New Draper | High Court of Admiralty | Yes | (1802) 4 C Rob 287; 165 ER 615 | England and Wales | Cited in respect of a claim for possession. |
| The Kiku Pacific | High Court | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR 595 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a claim for damages for wrongful arrest could still be pursued as a stand-alone right. |
| ABC Shipbrokers v The ship “Offi Gloria” | High Court | Yes | [1993] 3 NZLR 576 | New Zealand | Cited for the doctrine of in custodia legis. |
| Evans v Bartlam | House of Lords | Yes | [1937] AC 473 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that a person having accepted a benefit given him by a judgment cannot allege the invalidity of the judgment which conferred the benefit. |
| The Ohm Mariana | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR 698 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that malice on the part of the arresting party must first be established before an order that damages be assessed can be made. |
| The St Elefterio | Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division | Yes | [1957] P 179 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that unless the action was frivolous or vexations, the plaintiffs are entitled to bring the action in rem and have it tried. |
| The Moschanthy | Admiralty Court | Yes | [1971] 1 Lloyd 37 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the question as to whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim in rem must be answered by reference to the nature of the plaintiff’s claim as put forward. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Admiralty jurisdiction
- Arrest of vessel
- Approbation
- Reprobation
- Material non-disclosure
- Sheriff's expenses
- In custodia legis
- Provisional Patente
- Chattel mortgage
15.2 Keywords
- Admiralty
- Shipping
- Arrest
- Vessel
- Singapore
- High Court
- Possession
- Material non-disclosure
- Approbation
- Reprobation
16. Subjects
- Admiralty
- Shipping
- Civil Procedure
- Maritime Law
17. Areas of Law
- Admiralty Law
- Shipping Law
- Civil Procedure