Abdul Hamid v Nico Marine: Striking Out Claim for Outstanding Wages Due to Forged Crew Agreements

Abdul Hamid, Amrin Alex, Denny Aritonang, Nur Hakim, Nur Ikhwan, and Rasyidin Ar, Indonesian seamen, sued Nico Marine Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore on 29 July 2008, claiming outstanding wages. The seamen alleged that Nico Marine's employee forged their signatures on crew agreements submitted to the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA), misrepresenting their actual wages. Nico Marine's application to strike out the claim was dismissed by the Assistant Registrar, and the appeal against this decision was dismissed by the High Court on 25 September 2009.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Indonesian seamen sue Nico Marine for outstanding wages based on forged crew agreements. The court dismissed the appeal to strike out the claim.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Abdul HamidPlaintiff, RespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedWon
Amrin AlexPlaintiff, RespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedWon
Denny AritonangPlaintiff, RespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedWon
Nur HakimPlaintiff, RespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedWon
Nur IkhwanPlaintiff, RespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedWon
Rasyidin ArPlaintiff, RespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedWon
Nico Marine Pte LtdDefendant, AppellantCorporationAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tan Lee MengJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Navinder SinghNavin & Co LLP
Tan Bar TienB T Tan & Co

4. Facts

  1. The respondents are Indonesian seamen and former employees of the company.
  2. The respondents claimed outstanding wages from the company.
  3. The company's employee forged the respondents' signatures on crew agreements submitted to the MPA.
  4. The forged agreements showed higher wages than what the respondents were paid.
  5. The respondents were unaware of the discrepancy until after they left the company.
  6. The company applied to strike out the respondents' claim.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Abdul Hamid and Others v Nico Marine Pte Ltd, Adm in Per 127/2008, RA 216/2009, [2009] SGHC 262

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Proceedings instituted by the respondents
Company's application to strike out the respondents’ claim was dismissed
Appeal against Assistant Registrar’s ruling was dismissed
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Striking Out
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the appeal to strike out the claim.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • No reasonable cause of action
      • Abuse of process of the court
    • Related Cases:
      • [1998] 1 SLR 374
      • [2003] 1 SLR 295
  2. Fraud
    • Outcome: The court found that the issue of fraud needed to be fully ventilated at trial.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1912] AC 716
  3. Limitation
    • Outcome: The court found that whether the claims were time-barred could only be known after issues relating to fraud had been fully ventilated at trial.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Outstanding Wages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Fraud

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Maritime

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Gabriel Peter & Partners v Wee Chong JinCourt of AppealYes[1998] 1 SLR 374SingaporeCited for the principle that the power of striking out should only be invoked in plain and obvious cases.
Bandung Shipping Pte Ltd v Keppel TatLee Bank LtdCourt of AppealYes[2003] 1 SLR 295SingaporeCited for the principle that a hopeless claim should be struck out to save the defendant time and money.
Lloyd v Grace, Smith & CoN/AYes[1912] AC 716N/ACited for the proposition that an employer may be liable for the fraud of his employee depending on the circumstances.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)Singapore
Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed)Singapore
Merchant Shipping ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Crew Agreements
  • Outstanding Wages
  • Forgery
  • Striking Out
  • Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore

15.2 Keywords

  • Striking Out
  • Wages
  • Forgery
  • Employment
  • Maritime

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Civil Practice70
Fraud and Deceit60
Maritime Law40
Forgery30
Contract Law30
Agency Law25
Wage Law20
Employment Law20

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Employment Law
  • Shipping Law