T S Lines Ltd v The "Eagle Prestige": Disclosure Requirements for Warrant of Arrest in Admiralty Claim
In T S Lines Ltd v The "Eagle Prestige" [2010] SGHC 93, the Singapore High Court addressed the degree of disclosure required for a warrant of arrest application. T S Lines Ltd, the plaintiff, appealed against the Assistant Registrar's decision to set aside the arrest of the Eagle Prestige (renamed Engedi). The case arose from the grounding of the TS Bangkok, which was sub-chartered to EP Carriers Pte Ltd, the defendant. The plaintiff claimed damages for breach of contract, alleging that EP Carriers directed the TS Bangkok to an unsafe port. The High Court allowed the plaintiff's appeal, reversing the decision to set aside the arrest. The court's decision hinged on the assessment of material non-disclosure in the warrant of arrest application.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs of the appeal and below to be taxed, if not agreed.
1.3 Case Type
Admiralty
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court judgment on disclosure requirements for warrant of arrest. T S Lines Ltd v The "Eagle Prestige" [2010] SGHC 93.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T S Lines Ltd | Plaintiff, Appellant | Corporation | Appeal allowed | Won | Vivian Ang, Leona Wong, Henry Ng |
| The "Eagle Prestige" | Defendant | Other | |||
| EP Carriers Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | |||
| Capital Gate Holdings Pte Ltd | Intervener, Respondent | Corporation | Summons No 1777 of 2009 to set aside the warrant of arrest was unmeritorious | Lost | Timothy Tan, Magdalene Chew |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Vivian Ang | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Leona Wong | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Henry Ng | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Timothy Tan | AsiaLegal LLC |
| Magdalene Chew | AsiaLegal LLC |
4. Facts
- TS Bangkok grounded in Tanjong Priok, Indonesia, causing hull and propeller damage.
- Plaintiff was the disponent owner of the TS Bangkok.
- Plaintiff sub-chartered the TS Bangkok to EP Carriers Pte Ltd.
- Plaintiff claimed EP Carriers directed TS Bangkok to an unsafe port/berth.
- Eagle Prestige was arrested for unpaid wages before plaintiff's arrest.
- EP Carriers was in provisional liquidation.
- EP Carriers sold the Eagle Prestige to Capital Gate Holdings Pte Ltd.
5. Formal Citations
- The “Eagle Prestige”, Admiralty in Rem No 233 of 2008 (Registrar's Appeal No 178 of 2009), [2010] SGHC 93
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| TS Bangkok grounded in Tanjong Priok, Indonesia. | |
| Time charterparty dated between plaintiff and EP Carriers. | |
| UK P&I Club requested details of damage and repairs. | |
| The Swedish Club rejected the alleged defence. | |
| Plaintiff passed on head owner’s claim to the defendant. | |
| QBE responded to plaintiff’s lawyers regarding security. | |
| Plaintiff filed writ in rem against the Eagle Prestige. | |
| EP Carriers sold the Eagle Prestige to the intervener. | |
| Eagle Prestige first arrested in Singapore waters. | |
| EP Carriers in provisional liquidation. | |
| Eagle Prestige released from first arrest; arrested by plaintiff. | |
| Adm 9 was discontinued. | |
| Creditors approved the liquidation of EP Carriers. | |
| EP Carriers entered an appearance in Adm 233. | |
| Capital Gate intervened in Adm 233 and entered an appearance. | |
| Assistant Registrar set aside the arrest of the Eagle Prestige. | |
| High Court allowed the plaintiff’s appeal. | |
| Judicial sale of the Eagle Prestige ordered. | |
| Judicial sale of the Eagle Prestige was completed. | |
| Reasons for decision published. |
7. Legal Issues
- Material Non-Disclosure
- Outcome: The court held that the intervener's application to set aside the warrant of arrest based on material non-disclosure was unmeritorious.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to disclose plausible defences
- Omission of material facts
- Jurisdiction in Rem
- Outcome: The court found that the statutory requirements under s 3(1)(h) and s 4(4)(b) of the HCAJA were satisfied.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Good Arguable Case
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff was not required to show a good arguable case on the substantive merits at the interlocutory stage.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages
- Indemnity
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Indemnity
10. Practice Areas
- Admiralty
- Commercial Litigation
- Arbitration
11. Industries
- Shipping
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Vasiliy Golovnin | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 994 | Singapore | Cited regarding the requirement for the arresting party to show a good arguable case on the merits and the duty of disclosure in applications for warrant of arrest. |
| The St Elefterio | N/A | Yes | [1957] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 283 | N/A | Cited regarding the in personam test in s 4(4)(b) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act and the principle that the existence of a good defence to a claim would not negate the court’s admiralty jurisdiction. |
| The Rainbow Spring | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 362 | Singapore | Cited regarding the court's discretion to set aside an arrest on the ground of material non-disclosure. |
| The Vasiliy Golovnin | High Court | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 277 | Singapore | Cited for a fuller account of the facts of the case. |
| Recordtv Pte Ltd v MediaCorp TV Singapore Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 43 | Singapore | Cited for the meaning of 'frivolous or vexatious' and 'abuse of process'. |
| The Osprey | N/A | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 1099 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of 'frivolous and vexatious'. |
| Gabriel Peter & Partners v Wee Chong Jin | N/A | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of 'abuse of process'. |
| The Jarguh Sawit | N/A | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 829 | Singapore | Cited regarding the standard of proof required to assert jurisdiction. |
| Baltic Shipping Co Ltd v Pegasus Lines SA | N/A | Yes | [1996] 3 NZLR 641 | New Zealand | Cited regarding the plaintiff not having to establish at the outset that he has a cause of action substantial at law. |
| The Moschanthy | N/A | Yes | [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 37 | N/A | Cited regarding the plaintiff not having to establish at the outset that he has a cause of action substantial at law. |
| The Catur Samudra | High Court | Yes | [2010] SGHC 18 | Singapore | Cited regarding the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities in respect of an essential jurisdictional issue. |
| The Alexandrea | N/A | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 813 | Singapore | Cited regarding the plaintiff having to prove on a balance of probabilities the jurisdictional issue in question. |
| The Andres Bonifacio | N/A | Yes | [1991] 1 SLR(R) 523 | Singapore | Cited regarding the plaintiff having to prove on a balance of probabilities the jurisdictional issue in question. |
| The Inai Selasih (ex “Geopotes X”) | N/A | Yes | [2005] 4 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Cited regarding the onus on the plaintiff to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendant was the charterer of the Inai Seroja when the cause of action arose. |
| The Andres Bonifacio | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR(R) 71 | Singapore | Cited regarding beneficial ownership. |
| The Wigwam | N/A | Yes | [1981-1982] SLR(R) 689 | Singapore | Cited regarding the plaintiff not being required to prove at the outset that his cause of action was substantial in law. |
| Lok Maheshwari | High Court | Yes | [1996] SGHC 212 | Singapore | Cited regarding the court striking out the action if it is clear that the evidence relied upon by the Plaintiffs is obviously tenuous. |
| The Rolita | Hong Kong High Court | Yes | [1988 WL 1057731] | Hong Kong | Cited regarding the defendant's safeguard to bring a summons under Order 18 Rule 19 R.S.C. and have the claim struck out. |
| The Rolita | N/A | Yes | [1989] 1 HKLR 394 | Hong Kong | Cited regarding the appellate court reaffirming The St Elefterio approach. |
| The Thorlina | N/A | Yes | [1985-1986] SLR(R) 258 | Singapore | Cited regarding the plaintiff should have sued someone else in personam. |
| The AA V | N/A | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 664 | Singapore | Cited regarding the plaintiff should have sued someone else in personam. |
| The Rainbow Spring | High Court | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR(R) 117 | Singapore | Cited regarding the plaintiff should have sued someone else in personam. |
| Re A Debtor (No 75 of 1982), ex p The Debtor v National Westminster Bank | N/A | Yes | [1983] 3 All ER 545 | N/A | Cited regarding the duty to disclose is to inform the court of any facts which the plaintiff knows which might tell in the defendant’s favour. |
| Brink’s Mat Ltd v Elcombe | N/A | Yes | [1988] 1 WLR 1350 | N/A | Cited regarding the material facts are those which are material to enable the judge to make an informed decision. |
| The Harima | N/A | Yes | [1987] 2 HKC 118 | Hong Kong | Cited regarding the proper course was for the defendant to apply to strike out the action, rather than to rely on non-disclosure which was a backdoor route. |
| The J Faster | N/A | Yes | [2000] 1 HKC 652 | Hong Kong | Cited as a decision where the courts in Singapore and Hong Kong have acknowledged that an arrest can be set aside because either there was a lack of in personam liability or there was non-disclosure of material facts. |
| The Blue Fruit | N/A | Yes | [1979-1980] SLR(R) 238 | Singapore | Cited regarding it not always being the case that the mere fact that a plaintiff has arrested a vessel which has previously been released by order of a court of competent jurisdiction will amount to an abuse of the arrest process. |
| The Harima | N/A | Yes | [1987] 1 HKC 397 | Hong Kong | Cited regarding the court's first concern is to see whether the facts alleged prima facie bring the plaintiff within one or other of the relevant subsections in s 20(2) [our s 3(1) of HCAJA]. |
| The Cynthia G | N/A | Yes | N/A | Hong Kong | Cited regarding the duty to make full and frank disclosure at the application stage is, as Prakash J reminded in The Rainbow Spring (CA), the bulwark against abuse of the arrest process. |
| The Fierbinti | N/A | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR(R) 574 | Singapore | Cited regarding a court may in a proper case refuse to set aside an arrest even if it was found that there was non-disclosure of material information. |
| Norwich City Council v Harvey | N/A | Yes | [1989] 1 WLR 219 | N/A | Cited regarding the position here is to be contrasted with Norwich City Council v Harvey [1989] 1 WLR 219 where it was clear that the first part of the clause in question transferred the entire risk of damage by fire and other stipulated listed risks to the building to the owners. |
| Wisma Development v Sing-The Disc Shop Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1994] 1 SLR(R) 749 | Singapore | Cited regarding even if, for the sake of argument, cl 90 is an exclusion clause, the defendant has to show that it is an effective exclusion clause in that the grounding was fortuitous, and the incident was an insured peril within the meaning and scope of “customary policies of insurance”. |
| The Caroline P | N/A | Yes | [1985] 1WLR 553 | N/A | Cited regarding the indemnity claim here is distinguishable from The Caroline P [1985] 1WLR 553, which has to do with the nature of the indemnity to be implied when an owner’s agent was required under the terms of the charterparty to sign bills of lading as presented. |
| The Catherine Helen | N/A | Yes | [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 511 | N/A | Cited regarding it would be a commercially strange result that the head charterer/disponent owner has to wait until the head owner’s claim is ascertained before the head charterer/disponent owner’s right to claim indemnity from the sub-charter can arise. |
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 |
| s 3(1) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 3(1)(h) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 4(4) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| O 18 r 19 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| O 12 r 7 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| O 70 r 4 of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
| O70 r 4(7)(a) of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
| International Arbitration Act (Cap. 143A) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Warrant of Arrest
- Material Non-Disclosure
- Admiralty in Rem
- Safe Port/Berth
- Time Charterparty
- In Personam Liability
- Good Arguable Case
- Provisional Liquidation
- Exclusion Clause
- Indemnity
15.2 Keywords
- Admiralty
- Warrant of Arrest
- Material Non-Disclosure
- Shipping
- Charterparty
- Singapore
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- In Rem
- In Personam
16. Subjects
- Admiralty Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Shipping Law
- Maritime Law
17. Areas of Law
- Admiralty Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Arbitration Law