Alpha Bank S.A. v The "Sea Urchin": Application for Direct Judicial Sale of Vessel
Alpha Bank S.A. applied to the High Court of Singapore for a direct judicial sale of the vessel "Sea Urchin," after the defendant shipowner, Keel Marine Company Limited, defaulted on a loan agreement. The application was opposed by other interested parties. The court, presided over by Belinda Ang Saw Ean J, dismissed the application, finding that the circumstances did not warrant a departure from the standard procedure of a Sheriff-led sale.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Admiralty
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court considered an application for a direct judicial sale of the vessel "Sea Urchin." The court dismissed the application due to lack of special circumstances.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alpha Bank S.A. | Plaintiff, Applicant | Corporation | Application dismissed | Lost | Winston Kwek, Joseph Tang, Lim Ruo Lin |
| The "Sea Urchin" | Defendant | Other | Application dismissed | Won | Lawrence Teh |
| Keel Marine Company Limited | Defendant | Corporation | Application dismissed | Won | Lawrence Teh |
| Qingdao Bohi Agricultural Development Co Ltd | Intervener | Corporation | Neutral | Neutral | Kelly Yap |
| Pacific Bulk Shipping (Cayman) Ltd | Other | Corporation | Neutral | Neutral | Wendy Tan, Kang Yixian |
| Swissmarine Services S.A. | Other | Corporation | Neutral | Neutral | K Muralitherapany, Edward Koh |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Winston Kwek | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Joseph Tang | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Lim Ruo Lin | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Lawrence Teh | Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Kelly Yap | Oon & Bazul LLP |
| K Muralitherapany | Joseph Tan Jude Benny LLP |
| Edward Koh | Joseph Tan Jude Benny LLP |
| Wendy Tan | Stamford Law Corporation |
| Kang Yixian | Stamford Law Corporation |
| Jacqueline Lee | Sheriff, Supreme Court, Singapore |
4. Facts
- The Bank arrested the Vessel fully laden with a cargo of soya beans in bulk.
- The Defendant defaulted on a loan agreement secured by a first priority mortgage of the Vessel.
- The Bank applied for the Vessel to be sold pendente lite to a named buyer at a stated price.
- The Defendant reached a private arrangement with the Bank and did not oppose the direct sale.
- The Intervener asserted rights of ownership to the cargo of soya beans.
- Pacific Bulk claimed ownership of the bunkers on board.
- The offer price of US$17.5m was US$1.5m more that the value of the Vessel, which the Bank claimed to be US$16m.
5. Formal Citations
- The “Sea Urchin”, Admiralty in Rem No 355 of 2013 (SUM No 6520 of 2013), [2014] SGHC 24
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Vessel arrested by the Bank. | |
| Defendant entered an appearance to the Bank’s in rem action. | |
| Defendant applied to set aside the warrant of arrest and stay the action. | |
| Bank applied for the vessel to be sold pendente lite. | |
| Intervener was granted leave to intervene in proceedings. | |
| Bank’s application listed for hearing. | |
| Intervener entered an appearance. | |
| Adjourned hearing. | |
| Application for direct sale dismissed. |
7. Legal Issues
- Direct Judicial Sale
- Outcome: The court held that the facts of the case did not constitute special circumstances to warrant a direct judicial sale to a named buyer at a specified price.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2013] 4 SLR 615
8. Remedies Sought
- Order for sale of vessel
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Admiralty
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Shipping
- Banking
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Turtle Bay | High Court | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 615 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a direct judicial sale at a pre-determined price to a named person is generally not the accepted way to sell a vessel under arrest and the conditions under which it may be allowed. |
| Bank of Scotland plc v The Owners of the MV Union Gold and others | High Court of Justice | Yes | [2013] EWHC 1696 (Admlty) | England and Wales | Cited to support the principle that the court should not order a sale to a buyer found by the arresting party at a pre-determined price, but distinguished on its facts. |
| Bank of Scotland v “Nel” (The) | Federal Court | Yes | (1997) 140 FTR 271 | Canada | Cited by the Bank, Intervener, and Charterers to persuade the court to depart from the normal course of commissioning the Sheriff to appraise and sell the vessel because of the existence of “powerful special features” or “special circumstances” but distinguished on its facts. |
| Royal Bank of Scotland plc. v. Kimisis III (The) | Federal Court of Canada | Yes | [1999] F.C.J. No. 300 | Canada | Cited for the proposition that the Canadian position as to whether expenses should fall upon the cargo interests or the Sheriff was actually still open to debate. |
| Cameco Corp. v. “MCP Altona” (The) | Federal Court of Canada | Yes | (2013) 225 A.C.W.S. (3d) 292 | Canada | Cited for the holding that the costs of discharge fall on the cargo owner and was not a Marshal’s expense. |
| The Jogoo | High Court | Yes | [1981] 1 WLR 1376 | England and Wales | Cited for the reasons that English law places the burden of costs on the cargo interests. |
| Dharamdas & Co. (Nigeria) Ltd. and another v. The Owners of the Ship or Vessel “Mingren Development” and Panasia Realty & Finance Ltd | Supreme Court | Yes | [1979] HKCU 19 | Hong Kong | Cited for the adoption of the English position in relation to costs. |
| The “Nagasaki Spirit” | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR(R) 165 | Singapore | Cited for the position that the intervener who asserts rights over the cargo would have to off-load the cargo at its expense, and not at the Sheriff’s expense unless the equities of the case justify treating the costs of discharge as Sheriff’s expenses. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Frustrated Contracts Act (Cap 115, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Direct judicial sale
- Vessel arrest
- Mortgagee
- Pendente lite
- Special circumstances
- Cargo
- Sheriff's expenses
15.2 Keywords
- Admiralty
- Shipping
- Judicial Sale
- Vessel
- Mortgage
16. Subjects
- Admiralty
- Shipping
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Admiralty Law
- Civil Procedure
- Shipping Law