Antariksa Logistics v McTrans Cargo: Conversion Claim over Detained Shipping Containers
In 2012, the Singapore High Court heard a claim in conversion brought by Antariksa Logistics Pte Ltd and others against McTrans Cargo (S) Pte Ltd, concerning 30 shipping containers. The plaintiffs alleged that McTrans Cargo wrongfully detained the containers. The court, presided over by Justice Belinda Ang Saw Ean, found McTrans Cargo liable for conversion, holding that their claim of lien was illusory and their illegality defense failed. The court awarded damages to be assessed to the plaintiffs and granted a declaration that McTrans Cargo indemnify the plaintiffs against all liabilities and losses incurred arising from the conversion.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiffs
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court addressed a conversion claim involving Antariksa Logistics and McTrans Cargo over detained shipping containers, ruling in favor of the plaintiffs.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANTARIKSA LOGISTICS PTE LTD | Plaintiff | Corporation | Declaration Granted | Partial | |
| McTrans Cargo (S) Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Lost | Lost | |
| PT Prolink Logistics | Other | Corporation | |||
| PT Prolink Clare | Other | Corporation | |||
| Andy Wirawan | Other | Individual | |||
| Comstar Mobile Pte Ltd | Other | Corporation | |||
| Henri Dedy Yanto | Other | Individual | |||
| UBTS Technologies | Other | Corporation | |||
| Euro-Trans Logistics Pte Ltd | Other | Corporation |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The first three Plaintiffs operated a door-to-door service for shipment of goods from Singapore to Jakarta.
- The Defendant was the consignee named on the September bills of lading and agent appointed by Prolink Logistics.
- Prolink Logistics instructed the Defendant to receive the 30 FCL containers.
- The first three Plaintiffs made payments to Jonny for costs incurred in relation to the September shipment.
- The Defendant released the Group A Cargo on Prolink's instructions after obtaining Powers of Attorney from cargo owners.
- The Defendant detained the Group B Cargo, claiming a lien for storage and ancillary charges.
- The first three Plaintiffs appointed Prolink Logistics to arrange for the 30 FCL containers to be shipped back to Singapore.
5. Formal Citations
- Antariksa Logistics Pte Ltd and Others v McTrans Cargo (S) Pte Ltd, Suit No 856 of 2009, [2012] SGHC 154
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Outward shipment from Singapore to Indonesia of 30 FCL containers | |
| Prolink wrote to Indonesian customs authority for permission to take out the 30 FCL containers | |
| Indonesian customs authority rejected Prolink’s request | |
| Jakarta State Administrative Court decided that the Indonesian customs authority’s decision was made out of time | |
| Shipment of the 30 FCL containers from Jakarta to Singapore | |
| APL issued two bills of lading | |
| Samudera Shipping Line Ltd issued one bill of lading | |
| Kim learned of the change in the name of the consignee on Samudera bill of lading | |
| Defendant took possession of the 30 FCL containers from the carriers | |
| Unstuffing of the 30 FCL containers began | |
| Hari met Cuaca, who demanded further payment for the release of the 30 FCL containers | |
| Rajah & Tann wrote to the Defendant demanding delivery of the subject containers | |
| Unstuffing of the 30 FCL containers ended | |
| Writ of Summons issued | |
| Powers of Attorney were executed | |
| Defendant applied to strike out the Writ of Summons | |
| Assistant Registrar dismissed the defendant’s application to strike out the Writ of Summons | |
| Order obtained to join the 4th to 16th Plaintiffs to the action | |
| No order was made on SUM 5358/2009 on the final hearing | |
| Judgment given in favour of the 4th to 8th Plaintiffs, 10th to 13th Plaintiffs and the 15th Plaintiff with damages to be assessed | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Conversion
- Outcome: The court found the Defendant liable for conversion.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Right to immediate possession
- Innocent agent defense
- Ministerial acts
- Demand and refusal
- Related Cases:
- [2003] 1 SLR(R) 471
- [2009] 4 SLR(R) 1101
- Possessory Lien
- Outcome: The court found that the Defendant did not have a valid possessory lien.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Contractual lien
- Warehousemen’s lien
- Freight forwarder’s lien
- Lawful possession
- Illegality
- Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiffs’ claim was not tainted by illegality.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Evasion of customs duty
- Unlawful adventure
- Right to Immediate Possession
- Outcome: The court held that the Plaintiffs had the right to immediate possession of the goods.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Bailment at will
- Concurrent standing to sue
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Delivery up of goods
- Indemnification
9. Cause of Actions
- Conversion
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Shipping Litigation
- Freight Forwarding
11. Industries
- Logistics
- Shipping
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Cherry and others | N/A | Yes | [2003] 1 SLR(R) 471 | Singapore | Cited for the elements required to succeed in a claim for conversion. |
| Tat Seng Machine Movers Pte Ltd v Orix Leasing Singapore Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 1101 | Singapore | Cited for the elements required to succeed in a claim for conversion and the defense of innocent agent. |
| Francis Hollins v George Fowler | N/A | Yes | Francis Hollins v George Fowler (1874–5) LR 7 HL 757 | N/A | Cited for the principle that one who deals with goods at the request of the person who has actual custody of them, in the bona fide belief that the custodier is the true owner, should be excused. |
| Marcq v Christie Manson & Woods Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2004] QB 286 | N/A | Cited for the principle that possession of goods by an agent on the instructions of their apparent owner for the purpose of carrying out ministerial acts does not amount to conversion. |
| The “Future Express” | N/A | Yes | [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Law Reports 79 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the status of named consignee on a bill of lading merely gives a contractual right to obtain delivery of the containers vis-à-vis the carrier. |
| The “Future Express” | N/A | Yes | [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Law Reports 542 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the status of named consignee on a bill of lading merely gives a contractual right to obtain delivery of the containers vis-à-vis the carrier. |
| Costello v Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary | N/A | Yes | [2001] EWCA Civ 381 | N/A | Cited for the principles laid down in Webb v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police on the strength of a party’s bare possessory title. |
| Webb v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police | N/A | Yes | [2000] 2 WLR 546 | N/A | Cited for the principles on the strength of a party’s bare possessory title. |
| Belvoir Finance Co Ltd v Stapleton | N/A | Yes | [1971] 1 QB 219 | N/A | Cited for the principle that actual possession of the goods is not necessary to constitute a party as bailor. |
| Siew Kong Engineering Works (a firm) v Lian Yit Engineering Sdn Bhd and another | N/A | No | [1993] 1 SLR(R) 736 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish between a bailment for a term and a bailment at will. |
| The “Endurance 1” ex “Tokai Maru” | N/A | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR(R) 120 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that under a bailment at will, both the bailor and the bailee enjoy the concurrent standing to sue third parties and sub-bailees for conversion. |
| East West Corpn v DKBS AF 1912 A/S and another; Utaniko Ltd v P & O Nedlloyd BV | N/A | Yes | [2003] QB 1509 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the bailee and bailor’s standing to sue in conversion can be concurrent. |
| Transcontainer Express Ltd v Custodian Security Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1988] 1 Lloyd's Rep 128 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the remedies of the bailee are not always exclusive, for the bailor by reason of his right to possession may retain concurrently with him a sufficient right to maintain trespass and theft against strangers. |
| The Okehampton | N/A | Yes | [1913] P 173 | N/A | Cited for the principle that even if the shipowners had possession so as to make them sub-bailees to the plaintiffs, such bailment was revocable at pleasure. |
| Clayton v Le Roy | N/A | No | [1911] 2 KB 1031 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the plaintiff must establish that at the moment of its issue he was in a position to bring an action of detinue. |
| Tavoulareas v Lau and another | N/A | Yes | [2007] EWCA Civ 474 | N/A | Cited as an illustration of an unequivocal demand for return. |
| Cuff v Broadlands Finance | N/A | Yes | [1987] 2 NZLR 343 | N/A | Cited for the principle that no demand in law was necessary for the taking of the 30 FCL containers. |
| Schwarszchild v Harrods Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2008] EWHC 521 | N/A | Cited for the principle that silence can be tantamount to an unequivocal refusal to release the goods. |
| Bowmaker Ltd v Wycombe Motors Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1946] KB 505 | N/A | Cited for the principle that possession derived from the wrongful act of a third party will not suffice to found a possessory lien. |
| Crawshay v Homfray | N/A | Yes | (1820) 4 B & Ald 50 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the debt on which the lien is founded must have accrued at the time the lien was exercised. |
| Singh v Thaper | N/A | Yes | (unreported) (28 July 1987) | N/A | Cited for the principle that the party asserting the lien must either claim for a definite amount or give the owners or lienor particulars from which he can calculate the amount for which the lien is due. |
| Cassils & Co and Sassoon v Holden Wood Bleaching Co Ltd | N/A | Yes | (1915) 84 LJKB 834 | N/A | Cited for the principle that authority to create a lien may be implied if the freight forwarder’s principal was in lawful possession of the goods when possession was transferred to the freight forwarder. |
| Tear v Freebody | N/A | Yes | (1895) 140 ER 1071 | N/A | Cited for the principle that detention of the 30 FCL containers initially, and thereafter the Group B Cargo, in purported exercise of a lien which the court found that the Defendant did not in fact possess amounted to conversion. |
| Trans-World (Aluminium) Ltd v Cornelder China (Singapore) | N/A | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 501 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the narration and findings in the decisions of foreign courts were strictly inadmissible evidence. |
| Bowmakers Ltd v Barnet Instruments Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1945] KB 65 | N/A | Cited for the proposition that a claimant will be able to reclaim property if doing so does not involve reliance on the illegality. |
| Tinsley v Milligan | N/A | Yes | [1994] 1 AC 340 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a claimant will be able to reclaim property if doing so does not involve reliance on the illegality. |
| Siow Soon Kim v Lim Eng Beng alias Lim Jia Le | N/A | Yes | [2004] SGCA 4 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a claimant will be able to reclaim property if doing so does not involve reliance on the illegality. |
| Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd v Lucky Red Investments Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2004] 4 SLR(R) 559 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a claimant will be able to reclaim property if doing so does not involve reliance on the illegality. |
| Chee Jok Heng Stephanie v Chang Yue Shoon | N/A | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 1131 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a claimant will be able to reclaim property if doing so does not involve reliance on the illegality. |
| Geismar v Sun Alliance and London Insurance Ltd and Another | N/A | No | [1977] 1 QB 383 | N/A | Cited for the public conscience test. |
| General and Finance Facilities Ltd v Cooks Cars (Romford) Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1963] 1 WLR 644 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the action in conversion is a purely personal action and results in a judgment for pecuniary damages only. |
| Yoong Yuet Hoe v Shenson Engineering & Trading (S) Pte Ltd | N/A | No | [1994] SLR(R) 950 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that delivery up could be ordered in an action for conversion. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 15 Rule 4(8) of the Rules of Court |
| Order 33 Rule 2 of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Conversion
- Possessory Lien
- Innocent Agent
- Bill of Lading
- Consignee
- Freight Forwarding
- Bailment
- Illegality
- Detention
- Cargo
- FCL Containers
- Prolink POAs
15.2 Keywords
- conversion
- shipping containers
- freight forwarding
- possessory lien
- Singapore High Court
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Shipping
- Freight Forwarding
- Torts
- Commercial Disputes