The "Reecon Wolf": Collision in Straits of Malacca - Forum Non Conveniens & Admiralty Jurisdiction

The Singapore High Court heard Registrar’s Appeal No 94 of 2011 regarding the stay of an admiralty action between The "Reecon Wolf" and the Capt Stefanos, foreign vessels that collided in the Straits of Malacca. Belinda Ang Saw Ean J allowed the appeal, ordering a stay of the Singapore action in favor of Malaysia, finding Malaysia to be the more appropriate forum given the location of the collision, concurrent proceedings in Malaysia, and considerations of international comity. The court ordered the defendant to provide security to cover the plaintiff's claims in Malaysia.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed; Singapore Action stayed on condition that the defendant provides equivalent security in Malaysia.

1.3 Case Type

Admiralty

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court stays admiralty action over a collision in the Straits of Malacca, finding Malaysia a more appropriate forum.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
The "Reecon Wolf"Defendant, RespondentCorporationAppeal AllowedWon
The "Capt Stefanos"Plaintiff, AppellantCorporationAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw EanJYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
S MohanIncisive Law LLC
Bernard YeeIncisive Law LLC
John SeowRajah & Tann LLP
Vellayappan BalaRajah & Tann LLP

4. Facts

  1. The Capt Stefanos and the Reecon Wolf collided in the Straits of Malacca on 21 August 2010.
  2. The Reecon Wolf commenced an in rem action in Malaysia and arrested the Capt Stefanos.
  3. The Capt Stefanos commenced an in rem action in Singapore and arrested the Reecon Wolf.
  4. Both vessels were en route to Singapore for bunkers when the collision occurred.
  5. The collision occurred in Malaysian territorial waters.
  6. The Malaysian Marine Department investigated the collision.
  7. The High Court of Malaya at Malacca ruled that the Malaysian Action would proceed.

5. Formal Citations

  1. The “Reecon Wolf”, Admiralty in Rem No. 157 of 2010 (Registrar's Appeal No. 94 of 2011), [2012] SGHC 22

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Collision between the Capt Stefanos and the Reecon Wolf in the Straits of Malacca
The Reecon Wolf commenced an in rem action in the High Court of Malaya at Malacca and arrested the Capt Stefanos
Admiralty in Rem No 157 of 2010 was commenced in Singapore
The in rem writ was served and the Reecon Wolf was arrested in Singapore
The Reecon Wolf was released from arrest
The Capt Stefanos was released from arrest in Malacca
The Reecon Wolf filed its Preliminary Act in the Malaysian Action
The Capt Stefanos filed its Preliminary Act in the Singapore Action
The Capt Stefanos applied to stay the Malaysian Action in favour of Singapore
The Reecon Wolf applied for an order that the Singapore Action be stayed in favour of Malaysia
Summons No 5218 of 2010 was dismissed by the Assistant Registrar
The Reecon Wolf filed RA 94
An appeal would be lodged against the dismissal of the Malaysian Stay Application
The appeal in RA 94 was allowed and a stay of the Singapore Action was ordered
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Forum Non Conveniens
    • Outcome: The court found that Malaysia was a clearly more appropriate forum and ordered a stay of the Singapore action.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Availability of alternative forum
      • Connection to jurisdiction
      • International comity
      • Concurrent proceedings
    • Related Cases:
      • [1987] AC 460
      • [2007] 1 SLR(R) 377
      • [2008] 4 SLR(R) 543
      • [2011] 1 SLR 391
  2. Admiralty Jurisdiction
    • Outcome: The court acknowledged the plaintiff's right to invoke admiralty jurisdiction but found that it did not outweigh the factors favoring a stay.
    • Category: Jurisdictional

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Maritime Collision
  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Admiralty Litigation
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Shipping

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex LtdHouse of LordsYes[1987] AC 460England and WalesEstablished the principles for determining forum non conveniens, which the court applied in this case.
Rickshaw Investments Ltd and Another v Nicolai Baron von UexkullCourt of AppealYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 377SingaporeApproved and followed the Spiliada principles in Singapore.
CIMB Bank Bhd v Dresdner Kleinwort LtdCourt of AppealYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 543SingaporeFollowed the Spiliada principles in Singapore.
JIO Minerals FZC and others v Mineral Enterprises LtdCourt of AppealYes[2011] 1 SLR 391SingaporeFollowed the Spiliada principles in Singapore.
Chan Chin Cheung v Chan Fatt Cheung and othersHigh CourtYes[2010] 1 SLR 1192SingaporeCited regarding the factors considered in determining the natural forum.
Meadows Indemnity Co Ltd v Insurance Corporation of Ireland LtdCourt of AppealYes[1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 181England and WalesCited as a relevant factor in evaluating the more appropriate forum.
The Varna No 2Queen's Bench Division (Admiralty Court)Yes[1994] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 41England and WalesCited as a relevant factor in evaluating the more appropriate forum.
The Abidin DaverHouse of LordsYes[1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 339England and WalesCited regarding the undesirability of concurrent proceedings and the importance of international comity.
De Dampierre v De DampierreHouse of LordsYes[1988] AC 92England and WalesCited regarding the circumstances to be considered by the court.
Q&M Enterprises Sdn Bhd v Poh KiatHigh CourtYes[2005] 4 SLR(R) 494SingaporeCited regarding the importance of international comity.
Morguard Investments Ltd v De SavoyeSupreme CourtYes[1990] 3 SCR 1077CanadaCited for the definition of 'comity'.
Amchem Products Incorporated v British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board)Supreme CourtYes[1993] 1 SCR 897CanadaCited regarding the principles of forum non conveniens and the role of international comity.
The Atlantic StarHouse of LordsYes[1974] AC 436England and WalesExplained forum shopping in the context of ocean going vessels.
First National Bank of Boston v Union Bank of Switzerland and othersCourt of AppealYes[1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 32England and WalesExplained forum shopping in a forum non conveniens context.
The Lanka AthulaHigh CourtYes[1991] 1 HKC 101Hong KongCited regarding undertakings given in support of a stay application.
The PolesskQueen's Bench Division (Admiralty Court)Yes[1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 40England and WalesCited regarding undertakings given in support of a stay application.
The Peng YanCourt of AppealYes[2009] 1 HKLRD 144Hong KongCited regarding the place of collision being fortuitous.
The WellamoQueen's Bench Division (Admiralty Court)Yes[1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 229England and WalesCited regarding the convenience of witnesses.
Goh Suan Hee v Teo Cher TeckHigh CourtYes[2010] 1 SLR 367SingaporeCited regarding the applicable law for issues of liability and quantum of damages.
Evergreen International SA v Volkswagen Group Singapore Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2004] 2 SLR (R) 457SingaporeCited regarding admiralty action in rem and international comity.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Forum Non Conveniens
  • Admiralty Jurisdiction
  • In Rem
  • International Comity
  • Straits of Malacca
  • Concurrent Proceedings
  • Limitation of Liability

15.2 Keywords

  • Collision
  • Admiralty
  • Forum Non Conveniens
  • Singapore
  • Malaysia
  • Shipping
  • Jurisdiction
  • Comity

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Admiralty and Maritime Law95
Shipping90
Collision Law85
Forum Non Conveniens75
International Comity65
Civil Procedure60
Arbitration30
Breach of Contract20
Contract Law20
Property Law5

16. Subjects

  • Admiralty
  • Shipping
  • Civil Procedure
  • Conflict of Laws