Vasiliy Golovnin: Credit Agricole Suisse SA v Far Eastern Shipping Co Plc - Issue Estoppel & Wrongful Vessel Arrest

In Credit Agricole Suisse SA and others v Far Eastern Shipping Co Plc, the Singapore High Court addressed the defendant's application to strike out proceedings and set aside the warrant of arrest against the vessel 'Vasiliy Golovnin'. The plaintiffs, Swiss banks, sought to recover losses related to cargo carried on the 'Chelyabinsk'. The court, presided over by Assistant Registrar Ang Ching Pin, granted the defendant's application, finding that issue estoppel applied due to a prior Lome court ruling and that there was material non-disclosure by the plaintiffs when obtaining the warrant of arrest. The court awarded costs of $20,000 to the defendants, excluding disbursements.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Orders in terms of prayers (2), (3), (4) of the defendants’ application granted. Costs fixed at $20,000 to the defendants exclusive of disbursements.

1.3 Case Type

Admiralty

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court judgment regarding the arrest of the 'Vasiliy Golovnin'. The court considered issue estoppel and material non-disclosure.

1.7 Decision Date

9 July 2006

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Credit Agricole Suisse SA	Plaintiff	Corporation	Proceedings Struck Out	Lost	Kenny Yap, Joanne Chia
Banque Cantonale Geneve	Plaintiff	Corporation	Proceedings Struck Out	Lost	Kenny Yap, Joanne Chia
Far Eastern Shipping Co Plc	Defendant	Corporation	Application Granted	Won	Steven Chong, Ian Teo, Kohe Hassan

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Ang Ching Pin	Assistant Registrar	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Steven Chong	Rajah & Tann
Ian Teo	Rajah & Tann
Kohe Hassan	Rajah & Tann
Kenny Yap	Allen & Gledhill
Joanne Chia	Allen & Gledhill

4. Facts

The plaintiffs are Swiss banks who provided financing to Rustal SA.
The defendants, Far Eastern Shipping Co Plc, owned the Chelyabinsk.
The Chelyabinsk was chartered to Sea Transport Contractors Ltd who sub-chartered it to Rustal SA.
The plaintiffs were holders of certain bills of lading issued by FESCO.
The plaintiffs sought to arrest the Vasily Golovnin, a sister vessel of the Chelyabinsk, in Singapore.
The plaintiffs' claim related to losses sustained in relation to cargo carried on the Chelyabinsk.
A prior arrest of the Chelyabinsk in Lome was set aside by the Lome Court.

5. Formal Citations

The Vasiliy Golovnin, Adm 25/2006, SUM 1418/2006, [2006] SGHC 247

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2005-09-09	Charterparty dated between FESCO and Sea Transport Contractors Ltd.
2005-09-17	Bill of lading Chelyabinsk 01-A dated.
2005-10-10	Bills of lading KKD/LT/01, KKD/LT/02 and KKD/LT/04 dated.
2005-12-05	STC requested FESCO to switch the bills of lading to change the discharge port from Lome to Douala.
2005-12-12	Arrangements for the switch were to be made at Cornavin’s office.
2005-12-14	STC directed that FESCO should not switch the bills of lading until further instructions from STC to do so.
2005-12-15	STC reminded the Master of the Chelyabinsk that it should not enter and berth in Douala without STC’s approval.
2005-12-19	STC instructed FESCO to proceed to Lome to discharge the cargo.
2005-12-21	FESCO received a request from BCG’s solicitors, Waterson Hicks, to discharge the cargo under KKD/LT/04 in Douala, in exchange for a letter of indemnity.
2005-12-22	STC obtained a court order in Lome for the arrest and detention of the cargo onboard the Chelyabinsk.
2005-12-23	The Chelyabinsk arrived in Lome.
2005-12-24	Rustal obtained a court order from the Lome Court to prevent the discharge of the cargo from the Chelyabinsk.
2005-12-27	STC obtained a court order that the cargo be unloaded and discharged into the custody of the Compagnie Maritime d’Agence et d’Affretement.
2005-12-29	The banks applied to the Lome Court to set aside Ruling No. 2093/2005 and reinstate Ruling No. 2081/2005 obtained by Rustal.
2006-01-16	The Lome Court set aside Ruling No. 2081/2005 obtained by Rustal and ordered the cargo to be discharged in Lome.
2006-02-02	The Lome Court of Appeal ordered the lifting of the stay of execution of Ruling No. 0023/2006.
2006-02-04	FESCO commenced discharge of the cargo.
2006-02-17	STC obtained from the Lome Court an order for the arrest of the Chelyabinsk as security for its claim for damage to some of the cargo.
2006-02-21	The arrest order was set aside and the banks obtained a court ruling in Lome for the arrest of the Chelyabinsk.
2006-02-24	The arrest of the Chelyabinsk by the banks was set aside by the Lome Court.
2006-02-25	The Chelyabinsk departed from Lome.
2006-03-18	The plaintiffs obtained a warrant of arrest against the Vasily Golovnin in Singapore.
2006-03-28	The Lome Court of Appeal overturned Ruling No. 0023/2006, allowing the banks’ appeal against the order that the cargo be discharged in Lome.
2006-07-10	Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

Issue Estoppel
- Outcome: The court found that issue estoppel applied, preventing the plaintiffs from re-litigating the issue of arrest in Singapore.
- Category: Substantive
Material Non-Disclosure
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts when applying for the warrant of arrest.
- Category: Procedural
Wrongful Arrest
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiffs had not acted maliciously or with gross negligence in applying for the warrant of arrest and did not award damages for wrongful arrest.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Security for Claim
Arrest of Vessel

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Loss of or Damage to Goods Carried in a Ship

10. Practice Areas

Admiralty
Shipping
Civil Litigation

11. Industries

Shipping
Banking
Finance

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
House of Spring Gardens Ltd v Waite	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1991] 1 QB 241	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that it is an abuse of process to re-litigate an issue in one jurisdiction after it has been litigated in another.
The Irini A	N/A	Yes	[1999] 1 Lloyd’s Report 189	N/A	Cited for guidance on the nature of a Lome court order containing the phrase “l’execution provisoire”.
Nouvion v Freeman	N/A	Yes	(1889) App Cas 1	N/A	Cited for the test for determining finality of a judgment.
The Sennar (No 2)	N/A	Yes	[1985] 1 WLR 490	N/A	Cited for the principle that issue estoppel operates regardless of whether a Singapore court would regard the reasoning of the foreign judgment as open to criticism.
Leducv Ward	N/A	Yes	(1888) 20 QBD 475	N/A	Cited in relation to the parol evidence rule.
The Inai Selasih	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2006] 2 SLR 181	Singapore	Cited for the principles governing a claim for damages for wrongful arrest.
The Evangelismos	N/A	Yes	(1858) 12 Moo PC	N/A	Cited for the principles governing a claim for damages for wrongful arrest.
The Strathnaver	N/A	Yes	(1875) 1 App Cas 58	N/A	Cited for the principles governing a claim for damages for wrongful arrest.
The Kiku Pacific	N/A	Yes	[1999] 2 SLR 595	N/A	Cited for the principles governing a claim for damages for wrongful arrest.
Intergraph Corporation v Solid Systems Cad Services Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1993] FSR 617	N/A	Cited regarding the duty of full and frank disclosure in ex parte applications.

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

Issue Estoppel
Material Non-Disclosure
Warrant of Arrest
Bills of Lading
Charterparty
Lome Court
Cargo Discharge
Contracts of Carriage

15.2 Keywords

Admiralty
Shipping
Arrest
Vessel
Issue Estoppel
Singapore
High Court
Cargo
Bills of Lading

16. Subjects

Admiralty
Shipping
Civil Procedure

17. Areas of Law

Admiralty Law
Civil Procedure
Issue Estoppel