Likpin v Swiber: Breach of Contract & Admiralty Claim over Vessel Charter

Likpin International Ltd sued Swiber Holdings Ltd and Swiber Offshore Construction Pte Ltd for breach of a Procurement Agreement and tortious interference, respectively, related to the charter of a pipe-laying vessel for a project in Vietnam. The High Court of Singapore allowed the defendants' appeal, striking out Likpin's claim, finding the claim legally and factually unsustainable due to inconsistent pleadings, uncertainty in contract terms, and conduct inconsistent with the existence of the alleged Procurement Agreement. The court also addressed the conduct of the plaintiff's solicitors.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Admiralty

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court struck out Likpin's claim against Swiber for breach of a procurement agreement, finding the claim unsustainable due to inconsistent pleadings and lack of factual basis.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Swiber Offshore Construction Pte LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment for DefendantWon
LIKPIN INTERNATIONAL LTDPlaintiffCorporationClaim DismissedDismissed
Swiber Holdings LimitedDefendantCorporationJudgment for DefendantWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Steven Chong JJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Mahesh RaiDrew & Napier LLC
Jimmy Yim SCDrew & Napier LLC
Arvindran s/o ManoosegaranDrew & Napier LLC
Tan Hin Wa, JasonAsia Ascent Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. Likpin sought to charter a pipe-laying vessel for a subsea construction project.
  2. Likpin entered into a charterparty with Swiber Offshore Construction (2nd defendant) for the vessel Concorde.
  3. Disputes arose under the Concorde charterparty, leading to arbitration.
  4. Likpin and Swiber Offshore Construction (2nd defendant) entered into a Settlement Agreement.
  5. Likpin issued a writ against Swiber Holdings (1st defendant) for breach of a Procurement Agreement.
  6. The Procurement Agreement allegedly predated the Concorde charterparty.
  7. The Procurement Agreement was allegedly for the charter of the vessel Swiber Conquest.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Likpin International Ltd v Swiber Holdings Ltd and another, Admiralty in Personam No 113 of 2015 (Registrar's Appeal No 239 of 2015), [2015] SGHC 248

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Charterparty entered into between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant (Concorde charterparty)
Settlement Agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant
Admiralty in personam writ issued by the plaintiff against the 1st defendant
Defendants filed Summons No 3225/2015
Affidavit of Nitish Gupta filed
Affidavit of Mahmoud Shourideh filed
Assistant registrar dismissed the application
Defendants filed a notice of appeal against the AR’s decision
Plaintiff filed its statement of claim
Defendants’ submissions dated
Appeal heard before Steven Chong J
Plaintiff’s solicitors wrote in to court to request for leave to file a further affidavit
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that no concluded Procurement Agreement existed due to uncertainty in essential terms and inconsistent conduct by the plaintiff.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Uncertainty of contract terms
      • Failure to establish a concluded agreement
  2. Striking Out Application
    • Outcome: The court allowed the striking out application, finding the claim frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Inconsistent pleadings
      • Factual unsustainability of claim
  3. Abuse of Process
    • Outcome: The court found the suit to be an abuse of process, particularly in light of the Settlement Agreement and the plaintiff's conduct in the arbitration.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Re-litigation of settled matters
      • Inconsistent positions in prior proceedings

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Tort of Procuring Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Admiralty Litigation
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Charterparties

11. Industries

  • Construction
  • Shipping

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Chang Ah Lek and others v Lim Ah KoonCourt of AppealYes[1998] 3 SLR(R) 551SingaporeCited for the principle that an appeal from the registrar to a judge in chambers is not an appeal in the true sense and the judge deals with the matter as though it came before him for the first time.
Evans v BartlamN/AYes[1937] AC 473N/ACited for the principle that a judge in chambers deals with an appeal as though the matter came before him for the first time.
Lian Soon Construction Pte Ltd v Guan Qian Realty Pte LtdN/AYes[1999] 1 SLR(R) 1053N/ACited for the principle that the judge in chambers is free to allow the admission of fresh evidence in the absence of contrary reasons.
Ang Tin Yong v Ang Boon Chye and anotherN/AYes[2012] 1 SLR 447N/ACited for the principle that the court should take into account the surrounding circumstances, the commercial purpose of the agreement, and should avoid unreasonable results in interpreting the Settlement Agreement.
Sabah Shipyard (Pakistan) Ltd v Government of the Islamic Republic of PakistanN/AYes[2004] 3 SLR(R) 184N/ACited for the principle that the phrase “having any connection whatsoever” in the Settlement Agreement has been interpreted widely by previous courts.
Premium Nafta Products Ltd and others v Fili Shipping Co Ltd and othersUKHLYes[2007] UKHL 40United KingdomCited for the principle that the phrase “having any connection whatsoever” in the Settlement Agreement has been interpreted widely by previous courts.
The “Bunga Melati 5”Court of AppealYes[2012] 4 SLR 546SingaporeCited for the principle that at the striking out stage, the court is limited to considering whether a case is plainly and obviously unsustainable.
Wenlock v MoloneyN/AYes[1965] 1 WLR 1238N/ACited for the principle that in a striking out application, the court should not embark on “a minute and protracted examination of the documents and facts”.
Harwindar Singh s/o Geja Singh v Wong Lok Yung Michael and anotherN/AYes[2015] 4 SLR 69N/ACited for the principle that the plaintiff’s contractual claim was struck out because the court found that several material terms of the oral agreement as pleaded were too uncertain to constitute a binding agreement.
Philip Morris Products Inc v Power Circle Sdn Bhd and othersHigh CourtYes[1999] 1 SLR(R) 964SingaporeCited for the principle that there must be ample and clear allegations to inform the opponent and the court in advance of the case the opponent has to meet and settle the defence and prepare for the trial.
Ching Mun Fong (executrix of the estate of Tan Geok Tee, deceased) v Liu Cho Chit and another appealN/AYes[2000] 1 SLR(R) 53N/ACited for the principle that it is open to the court to give the plaintiff leave to amend its pleadings if the defects can be cured by an amendment.
Three Rivers District Council v Governor and Company of the Bank of EnglandHouse of LordsYes[2001] UKHL 16United KingdomCited for the principle that a claim is factually unsustainable because the basis for the claim is fanciful because it is entirely without substance and is contradicted by all the documents on which it is based.
Treasure Valley Group Ltd v Saputra Teddy and another (Ultramarine Holdings Ltd, intervener)N/AYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 358N/ACited for the principle that the doctrine of approbation and reprobation precludes a person who has exercised a right from exercising another right which is alternative to and inconsistent with the right he has exercised.
Syarikat Panon Sdn Bhd v Zacon Engineering Works Sdn BhdMalaysian High CourtYes[2007] 8 MLJ 309MalaysiaCited for the principle that an ad hoc approach to litigation is to be frowned upon.
Parakou Shipping Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Liu Cheng Chan and othersHigh CourtYes[2015] SGHC 96SingaporeCited for the principle that when the deadline for submissions as directed by the court has passed, no counsel should submit any further argument (or any matter) without the leave of court.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 18 r 15(2) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)
Order 6 r 2(1)(a) of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123, 2001 Rev Ed)Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)Singapore
Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act (Cap 53B)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Charterparty
  • Procurement Agreement
  • Settlement Agreement
  • Admiralty in personam writ
  • Striking out application
  • Mobilization
  • Vessel charter
  • Concorde charterparty
  • Swiber Conquest
  • Swiber Concorde

15.2 Keywords

  • Admiralty
  • Breach of contract
  • Charterparty
  • Shipping
  • Singapore
  • Vessel
  • Procurement Agreement
  • Settlement Agreement

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Striking out80
Breach of Contract80
Admiralty and Maritime Law75
Shipping Law70
Charterparty Disputes70
Contract Law70
Arbitration60
Procurement Agreement60
Abuse of Process60
Civil Procedure50
Summary Judgement40
Estoppel30

16. Subjects

  • Admiralty
  • Contract Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Shipping Law