ANL Singapore Ltd v The "Makassar Caraka Jaya Niaga III-39": Admiralty Claim, Beneficial Ownership & Arbitration

In ANL Singapore Ltd v The "Makassar Caraka Jaya Niaga III-39", the Singapore High Court addressed an admiralty claim by ANL against PT Djakarta Lloyd (PTDL) for unpaid slot fees. ANL arrested the vessel Makassar, arguing PTDL was its beneficial owner. PTDL intervened, claiming the vessel belonged to the Indonesian State. The Assistant Registrar set aside the arrest and ordered a stay for foreign arbitration. The High Court allowed ANL's appeal regarding the arrest, finding PTDL to be the beneficial owner, but dismissed the appeal against the stay for arbitration.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed in part. The appeal against the Assistant Registrar’s decision to set aside the writs and the arrest of the vessel was allowed. The appeal against his decision to stay the proceedings in favour of foreign arbitration was dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Admiralty

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case regarding an admiralty claim for unpaid slot fees, beneficial ownership of a vessel, and a stay of proceedings for arbitration.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
ANL Singapore LtdAppellant, PlaintiffCorporationAppeal allowed in partPartial
PT Djakarta Lloyd (Persero)Respondent, IntervenerCorporationProceedings stayed in favour of arbitrationStayed

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tan Lee MengJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Toh Kian SingRajah & Tann LLP
Leong Kah WahRajah & Tann LLP
Koh See BinRajah & Tann LLP
Leong Kai YuanAng & Partners
Gan Seng CheeAng & Partners

4. Facts

  1. ANL claimed PTDL owed US$719,440.17 for slot fees under the AAX Main Agreement.
  2. ANL arrested the Makassar as security for its claim.
  3. PTDL claimed the Makassar was owned by the Indonesian State, not PTDL.
  4. The Makassar was registered in PTDL’s name at the Jakarta registry.
  5. Indonesian government provided loans to PTDL to complete the construction of the vessels.
  6. The AAX Main Agreement contains arbitration clauses.

5. Formal Citations

  1. The “Makassar Caraka Jaya Niaga III-39”, Admiralty in Rem No 175 of 2009 (Registrar's Appeal No 16 of 2010), [2010] SGHC 306

6. Timeline

DateEvent
AAX Main Agreement entered between ANL and PTDL.
ANL arrested the Makassar.
PTDL filed SUM 5039/2009 to release the Makassar and stay proceedings.
Assistant Registrar set aside the arrest of the Makassar and ordered a stay of proceedings.
Judgment reserved.
Indonesian government launched the “Caraka Jaya III Implementation Program”.
Indonesian government entered into subsidiary loan agreements with PT Pann.
Indonesian government entered into subsidiary loan agreements with PT Pann.
PTDL was directed to take over the duties and responsibilities of PT Pann.
The Makassar was delivered to PTDL by the shipyard.
The Makassar was registered in PTDL’s name at the Jakarta registry.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Beneficial Ownership of a Vessel
    • Outcome: The court held that PTDL is the beneficial owner of the Makassar.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1977-1978] SLR(R) 105
      • [1998] 2 SLR(R) 573
      • [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 430
  2. Stay of Proceedings for Arbitration
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the appeal against the Assistant Registrar's decision to stay the proceedings in favour of foreign arbitration.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2009] 4 SLR(R) 732

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Arrest of Vessel
  2. Monetary Damages
  3. Stay of Proceedings

9. Cause of Actions

  • Admiralty Claim
  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Admiralty
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Arbitration

11. Industries

  • Shipping

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
The Pangkalan Susu/Permina 3001High CourtNo[1977-1978] SLR(R) 105SingaporeCited to define 'beneficial ownership' in the context of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act.
Pacific Recreation Pte Ltd v SY Technology Inc and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 491SingaporeCited regarding the qualifications and expertise required of an expert witness on foreign law.
The Andres BonifacioHigh CourtYes[1993] 3 SLR(R) 71SingaporeCited regarding tracing the history of ownership of a vessel to ascertain beneficial ownership.
The Kapitan TemkinHigh CourtYes[1998] 2 SLR(R) 573SingaporeCited regarding the evidentiary weight of a certificate of registration in determining beneficial ownership.
The Tian Sheng No 8Hong Kong Court of Final AppealYes[2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 430Hong KongCited to emphasize that it is difficult to prove that the registered owner of a vessel is not its beneficial owner.
Tjong Very Sumito and Ors v Antig Investments Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2009] 4 SLR(R) 732SingaporeCited regarding the mandatory stay of proceedings under Section 6 of the International Arbitration Act and the interpretation of 'dispute' in the context of arbitration agreements.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123, 2001 Rev Ed)Singapore
International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002, Rev Ed)Singapore
Law No 21 of 1982 concerning ShippingIndonesia

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Beneficial Ownership
  • Slot Fees
  • Admiralty in Rem
  • Arrest of Vessel
  • Arbitration Agreement
  • Stay of Proceedings
  • Caraka Jaya III
  • State-Owned Company

15.2 Keywords

  • Admiralty
  • Shipping
  • Beneficial Ownership
  • Arbitration
  • Singapore
  • Vessel Arrest

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Admiralty and Maritime Law90
Slot Charterparty80
Beneficial Ownership75
Arbitration70
Breach of Contract60
Contract Law50
Foreign Law40
Private International Law30

16. Subjects

  • Admiralty
  • Shipping
  • Arbitration
  • Beneficial Ownership