Credit Agricole v Far East Shipping: Admissibility of Further Affidavit in Appeal

In Credit Agricole (Suisse) SA and Banque Cantonale De Genève SA (collectively referred to as “the banks”) v Far East Shipping Co plc (“FESCO”), the High Court of Singapore heard an application by the banks to admit a further affidavit by Mr. Adama Doe-Bruce for the purpose of an appeal against the decision of the assistant registrar, who had set aside the banks' writ against FESCO and their warrant of arrest of the vessel Vasiliy Golovnin. The High Court dismissed the application, finding no need for the further affidavit.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application to admit further affidavit dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Admiralty

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court addressed the admissibility of a further affidavit in an appeal concerning the arrest of a vessel. The court dismissed the application.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Credit Agricole (Suisse) SAPlaintiffCorporationApplication DismissedLost
Banque Cantonale de Geneve SAPlaintiffCorporationApplication DismissedLost
Far East Shipping Co plcDefendantCorporationSuccessful Resistance of ApplicationWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tan Lee MengJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Kenny YapAllen & Gledhill
Vivian AngAllen & Gledhill
Joanne ChiaAllen & Gledhill
Ian TeoRajah & Tann
Steven ChongRajah & Tann
Kohe Noor HasanRajah & Tann

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiffs, Credit Agricole (Suisse) SA and Banque Cantonale De Genève SA, arrested the Vasiliy Golovnin, a vessel owned by the defendant, Far East Shipping Co plc.
  2. The plaintiffs appealed against the decision of the assistant registrar, who set aside their writ against FESCO and their warrant of arrest of the vessel.
  3. The banks sought leave to admit a further affidavit by a Togolese lawyer for the purpose of the hearing of the appeal.
  4. FESCO chartered their vessel, the Chelyabinsk, to Sea Transport Contractors Ltd, who subchartered the vessel to Rustal SA.
  5. The banks provided financing to Rustal and are holders of the bills of lading for the cargo of rice on board the Chelyabinsk.
  6. A dispute arose between the charterers, STC, and the subcharterers, Rustal, over the subcharter hire.
  7. The banks arrested the Vasily Golovnin, a sister vessel of the Chelyabinsk, in Singapore.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Vasiliy Golovnin, Adm in Rem 25/2006, SUM 3977/2006, [2006] SGHC 188

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Cargo of rice loaded onto the vessel Chelyabinsk at China and India.
Parties agreed to effect change of port of discharge but Rustal’s officials did not turn up.
STC obtained a court order in Lome for the arrest and detention of the cargo on board the Chelyabinsk.
The Chelyabinsk arrived at Lome.
Rustal obtained an order from the Lome court to prevent the discharge of the cargo from the Chelyabinsk.
STC obtained a court order to have the cargo unloaded and discharged into the custody of the agent for the Chelyabinsk.
The banks applied to the Lome court to set aside Ruling No 2093/2005 and reinstate Ruling No 2081/2005.
The Lome court set aside the ruling obtained by Rustal and ordered the cargo to be discharged in Lome.
The Lome court ordered the lifting of the stay of execution of Ruling No 0023/2006.
The banks obtained a court order in Lome for the arrest of the Chelyabinsk.
The arrest of the vessel was set aside by the Lome court.
The Chelyabinsk left Lome.
The time allowed for an appeal against Ruling No 0164/2006 expired.
The banks arrested the Vasily Golovnin in Singapore.
The Lome Court of Appeal reversed Ruling No 0023/2006.
Assistant registrar set aside the arrest and struck out the suit.
Mr Pierre Dubochet and Mr Jerome Bonnard filed an affidavit in support of the admission of the further affidavit.
High Court dismissed the application to admit the further affidavit.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Admissibility of Further Evidence
    • Outcome: The court held that the further affidavit was not necessary as the issues were either already addressed or conceded by the opposing party.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Relevance of new evidence
      • Whether the issues were already addressed
  2. Issue Estoppel
    • Outcome: The court considered issue estoppel as one of the grounds on which the assistant registrar found in favour of FESCO, but the application to admit further evidence was dismissed.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Admission of further affidavit

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Appeals
  • Shipping Law

11. Industries

  • Shipping
  • Banking
  • Finance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Lian Soon Construction Pte Ltd v Guan Qian Realty Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[1999] 2 SLR 233SingaporeCited for the principle that a judge hearing an appeal from an assistant registrar has the discretion to admit new evidence.
Ascot Commodities NV v Northern Pacific Shipping (The “Irini A”) (No 2)N/AYes[1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 189N/ACited in relation to whether the judgment of the Togolese court that was considered in The Irini A is of the same type and nature as the ruling given by the Togolese court in the present case.

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

  • Further affidavit
  • Appeal
  • Arrest of vessel
  • Issue estoppel
  • Provisional enforcement
  • Provisional injunction

15.2 Keywords

  • Admiralty
  • Shipping
  • Civil Procedure
  • Appeal
  • Affidavit
  • Vessel Arrest

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Admiralty and Maritime Law90
Civil Procedure70
Shipping Disputes40
Arbitration30
Breach of Contract20

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Admiralty Law
  • Shipping
  • Appeals