Zweite Ms “Philippa Schulte” v PSA Corp: Negligence Claim over Damaged Hatch Cover

Zweite Ms “Philippa Schulte” Shipping GmbH & Co KG and St Philonas Shipping Co Ltd, the plaintiffs, sued PSA Corporation Limited in the High Court of Singapore, Tan Lee Meng J, presiding, on 28 June 2012, for negligence after a hatch cover was damaged during cargo operations. The plaintiffs claimed the PSA negligently dropped the hatch cover. The PSA denied negligence and counterclaimed for damage to its wharf. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim, finding they failed to prove ownership of the vessel and did not establish negligence on the part of the PSA. The PSA withdrew its counterclaim.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiffs' claim dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court dismissed a negligence claim against PSA Corp for a damaged hatch cover, finding the plaintiffs failed to prove ownership and negligence.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Zweite Ms "Philippa Schulte" Shipping GmbH & Co KGPlaintiffCorporationClaim DismissedLost
St Philonas Shipping Co LtdPlaintiffCorporationClaim DismissedLost
PSA Corp LtdDefendantCorporationCounterclaim WithdrawnNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tan Lee MengJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Syed Isa bin Mohamed AlhabsheeOon & Bazul LLP
Mohamed Goush MarikanOon & Bazul LLP
Toh Kian SingRajah & Tann LLP
Vellayappan BalasubramaniamRajah & Tann LLP
Lim JunmingRajah & Tann LLP

4. Facts

  1. The first plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the vessel when the accident occurred.
  2. The second plaintiff claimed to be the demise charterer of the vessel at the material time.
  3. The plaintiffs alleged that the PSA negligently lifted and dropped one of the vessel’s hatch covers.
  4. The PSA denied liability and counterclaimed against the plaintiffs for damage to its wharf.
  5. The vessel berthed at the PSA’s Brani Container Terminal Berth 06 on 6 January 2009.
  6. A Spreader was installed onto the gantry crane to lift hatch covers and containers.
  7. The PSA deployed three key persons at the time the hatch cover was lifted.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Zweite Ms “Philippa Schulte” Shipping GmbH & Co KG & another v PSA Corp Ltd, Suit No 82 of 2009, [2012] SGHC 135

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Accident occurred at PSA's Brani Container Terminal Berth 06
Able-bodied seaman, Managbanag F Clemente, deployed to monitor the lifting of the hatch cover
Mr Sio Beng Huat recommended a metallurgical examination of the detached lifting socket
PSA filed its defence
Trial commenced
Plaintiffs filed a Supplementary List of Documents
Plaintiffs withdrew their application to admit documents as secondary evidence
Plaintiffs' solicitors furnished 'originals' of documents for inspection
Plaintiffs sought to admit copies of the CSR as part of the Agreed Bundle of Documents
Trial resumed
Plaintiffs tried to furnish the vessel's CSR for the court's inspection
Mr Syed Isa filed an affidavit to explain discrepancies in the copies of the CSR
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Negligence
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the PSA breached its duty of care.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Breach of duty of care
      • Causation
      • Standard of care
    • Related Cases:
      • [1986] 1 AC 785
      • [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100
      • [2007] 3 SLR(R) 782
  2. Title to Sue
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove that they were the owner and demise charterer of the vessel respectively at the material time.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1992] 2 SLR(R) 231
      • [2001] 1 SLR(R) 263
      • [2005] 4 SLR(R) 417
  3. Bailment
    • Outcome: The court found that there was no bailment relationship between the PSA and the plaintiffs.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Possession
      • Control
    • Related Cases:
      • (1925) 21 Ll LR 310
      • [1998] 1 SLR(R) 932
      • [2007] 1 SLR(R) 411
      • [2005] 2 SLR(R) 744
      • (1703) 2 Raym Ld 909
  4. Res Ipsa Loquitur
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiffs could not rely on res ipsa loquitur.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Negligence
      • Causation
    • Related Cases:
      • [1993] 3 SLR(R) 43
      • (1865) 3 H & C 596
      • [2004] 1 SLR(R) 628
      • [2006] 3 SLR(R) 116
      • [2011] 1 MLJ 239

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages
  2. Indemnity for claims and losses suffered by third parties

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Shipping Litigation

11. Industries

  • Shipping
  • Port Operations

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Leigh & Sillavan Ltd v Aliakmon Shipping Co LtdHouse of LordsYes[1986] 1 AC 785England and WalesCited for the principle that a plaintiff must have legal ownership or possessory title to property to claim for negligence.
The Opal 3 ex KuchinoHigh CourtYes[1992] 2 SLR(R) 231SingaporeCited for the principle that a certificate of registration is prima facie evidence of ownership.
The IvanovoHigh CourtYes[2001] 1 SLR(R) 263SingaporeCited for the principle that a certificate of registration is prima facie evidence of ownership.
Jet Holding v Cooper CameronHigh CourtYes[2005] 4 SLR(R) 417SingaporeCited to argue that Mr Heidrich had sufficient involvement with the vessel to have personal knowledge of the ownership of the vessel, but distinguished by the court.
The ShravanHigh CourtYes[1999] 2 SLR(R) 713SingaporeCited for the proposition that the court can rely on documents contained in a plaintiff’s bundle of documents, but distinguished by the court.
The Andres BonifacioHigh CourtYes[1991] 1 SLR(R) 523SingaporeCited to argue that Sea-Web searches were prima facie evidence of ownership of the vessel by the first plaintiff, but distinguished by the court.
The Kapitan TemkinHigh CourtYes[1998] 2 SLR(R) 537SingaporeCited to argue that Sea-Web searches were prima facie evidence of ownership of the vessel by the first plaintiff, but distinguished by the court.
Zheng Yu Shan v Lian Beng Construction (1988) Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2009] 2 SLR(R) 587SingaporeCited to argue that the court ought to take judicial notice of the their Sea-Web search results, but distinguished by the court.
City Chain Stores (S) Pte Ltd v Louis Vuitton MalletierCourt of AppealYes[2010] 1 SLR 382SingaporeCited for the principle that before taking judicial notice of any fact, the court should carefully consider whether that fact is of such an unassailable character.
The Saudi PrinceN/AYes[1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep, 255N/ACited for the principle that the Lloyd’s Register is “not infallible” even though it is a very useful guide for those who wish to find out about the identity of the owners of a ship.
Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology AgencyCourt of AppealYes[2007] 4 SLR(R) 100SingaporeCited for the test to determine the existence of a duty of care for claims of negligence.
Sunny Metal & Engineering Pte Ltd v Ng Khim Ming EricCourt of AppealYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 782SingaporeCited for the principles of causation in fact and causation in law.
Khoo Bee Keong v Ang Chun Hong and AnotherHigh CourtYes[2005] SGHC 128SingaporeCited for the principle that if a critical factual premise of an expert opinion is wrong, that opinion will be rejected even if it is otherwise flawlessly reasoned.
Ng Koo Kay Benedict v Zim Integrated Shipping Services LtdHigh CourtYes[2010] 2 SLR 60SingaporeCited for the principle that the witness who is called to certify the reliability and accuracy of the computer must be someone fairly familiar with its operation.
Makita (Australia) Pty Ld v Vicki Jane SprowlesNew South Wales Court of AppealYes[2001] NSWCA 305AustraliaCited for the requirements of expert evidence.
Commercial Union Assurance Co plc v Lee Siew KhuanHigh CourtYes[1990] 2 SLR(R) 549SingaporeCited for the principle of what competence of an expert entails.
Public Prosecutor v Muhamed bin SulaimanN/AYes[1982] 2 MLJ 320MalaysiaCited for the principle that while an expert must be skilled, he need not be so by special study, he may be so by experience, and the fact that he has no acquired his knowledge professionally goes merely to weight and not to admissibility.
The RuapehuN/AYes(1925) 21 Ll LR 310England and WalesCited to support their contention that there was a bailment of the hatch cover, but distinguished by the court.
The Wilson RubyHigh CourtYes[1998] 1 SLR(R) 932SingaporeCited to support their contention that there was a bailment of the hatch cover, but distinguished by the court.
Sun Technosystems Pte Ltd v Federal Express Services (M) Sdn BhdCourt of AppealYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 411SingaporeCited for the principle that if a bailment relationship is proven, then the PSA has to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that it had taken reasonable care of the goods.
Techking Enterprise Ltd and another v JFE Consolidators Pte Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2005] 2 SLR(R) 744SingaporeCited for the principle that if a bailment relationship is proven, then the PSA has to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that it had taken reasonable care of the goods.
Coggs v BernardN/AYes(1703) 2 Raym Ld 909England and WalesCited for the principle that a bailee was not the insurer of the hatch cover.
Teng Ah Kow and another v Ho Sek Chiu and othersCourt of AppealYes[1993] 3 SLR(R) 43SingaporeCited for the principle of res ipsa loquitur.
Scott v The London and St Katherine Docks CompanyN/AYes(1865) 3 H & C 596England and WalesCited for the principle of res ipsa loquitur.
Cheong Ghim Fah v Murugian s/o RangasamyHigh CourtYes[2004] 1 SLR(R) 628SingaporeCited for the principle that res ipsa loquitur does not apply in situations where the accident could conceivably have happened within any one of a number of different permutations.
Tesa Tape Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Wing Seng Logistics Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2006] 3 SLR(R) 116SingaporeCited to support their assertion that a specific plea of negligence does not prevent them from making an alternative plea of res ipsa loquitur, but distinguished by the court.
Sarawak Shell Bhd v The Owners or other persons interested in The Ship or Vessel The ‘Red Gold’ and another actionN/AYes[2011] 1 MLJ 239MalaysiaCited to support their assertion that a specific plea of negligence does not prevent them from making an alternative plea of res ipsa loquitur, but distinguished by the court.
Barkway v South Wales Transport Co LtdN/AYes[1950] 1 All ER 392England and WalesCited for the principle of res ipsa loquitur.
Sim Cheng Soon v BT Engineering Pte Ltd and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 148SingaporeCited for the principle that only expert witnesses may give opinion evidence.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 27 rule 4 of the Rules of Court
Order 41 rule 5 of the Rules of Court
Order 40A r 3(2) of the Rules of Court
s 66 of the Evidence Act
s 35 of the Evidence Act
s 62(1)(d) of the Evidence Act

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Hatch cover
  • Gantry crane
  • Spreader
  • Twistlocks
  • Lifting sockets
  • STA
  • WOS
  • 3-step hoist
  • Misalignment
  • Metallurgical examination
  • Progecad
  • Res ipsa loquitur
  • Bailment

15.2 Keywords

  • Negligence
  • Hatch cover
  • PSA
  • Shipping
  • Bailment
  • Res ipsa loquitur
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Negligence80
Shipping70
Admiralty and Maritime Law60
Cargo Operations60
Port Operations50
Breach of Contract30
Contract Law30
Civil Procedure20
Civil Litigation20

16. Subjects

  • Shipping
  • Negligence
  • Bailment
  • Civil Litigation