Hung Dao v Vietnam National Shipping: Admiralty Jurisdiction & Damage Done by Ship

In Hung Dao Container Joint Stock Company v Vietnam National Shipping Lines, the Singapore High Court addressed the defendant's appeal against the Assistant Registrar's decision regarding an in rem writ. The plaintiff, Hung Dao, initiated proceedings following the loss of containers from the vessel Phu Tan. The court, presided over by Belinda Ang Saw Ean J, considered issues of admiralty jurisdiction, specifically whether the claim qualified as 'damage done by a ship' under the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act, and whether the claim was time-barred under Vietnamese law. The court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the externality criterion was not met, but did not find the claim to be time-barred.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed in Part

1.3 Case Type

Admiralty

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court judgment on admiralty jurisdiction regarding damage done by a ship. The court held that the externality criterion must be considered.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
HUNG DAO, CONTAINER JOINT STOCK COMPANYPlaintiff, RespondentCorporationAppeal Allowed in PartPartial
VIETNAM NATIONAL SHIPPING LINESDefendant, AppellantCorporationAppeal Allowed in PartPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ho Pey YannAllen & Gledhill LLP
Vivian AngAllen & Gledhill LLP
Philip TayRajah & Tann Singapore LLP

4. Facts

  1. Hung Dao commenced in rem proceedings and arrested the Vinalines Pioneer.
  2. The claim arose from the loss of 111 containers on board the Phu Tan.
  3. The Phu Tan capsized and sank in the Gulf of Tonkin on 16 December 2010.
  4. Vietnam National Shipping Lines owned the Phu Tan and the Vinalines Pioneer.
  5. The contract to lease the containers was between Hung Dao and Vietnam National Shipping Lines.
  6. The writ was filed more than two years after the ship sank.

5. Formal Citations

  1. The “Vinalines Pioneer”, ADM No 163 of 2013 (Registrar's Appeal No 402 of 2014), [2015] SGHC 278

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Phu Tan capsized and sank in the Gulf of Tonkin
Hung Dao commenced in rem proceedings in Singapore
Vinalines Pioneer arrested
Registrar's Appeal No 402 of 2014 filed
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Admiralty Jurisdiction
    • Outcome: The court held that the externality criterion must be considered in establishing jurisdiction in rem under s 3(1)(d) of HCAJA.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Damage done by a ship
      • Externality criterion
  2. Time Bar
    • Outcome: The court held that the defence of limitation is not factually and legally unsustainable so as to warrant a striking out of the writ and action summarily.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Non-disclosure of Material Facts
    • Outcome: The court held that there was no breach of duty to disclose material facts as alleged by the defendant.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence
  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Admiralty
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Shipping

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
The Vinalines PioneerHigh CourtYes[2015] SGHCR 01SingaporeRefers to the Assistant Registrar’s decision being appealed.
Nagrint v The Ship RegisHigh Court of AustraliaYes(1939) 61 CLR 688AustraliaDiscussed in relation to the externality criterion for damage done by a ship.
Berliner Bank AG v C Czarnikow Sugar LtdEngland and Wales High Court (Admiralty Court)Yes[1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 281England and WalesDiscussed in relation to the externality criterion for damage done by a ship.
The “Eschersheim”House of LordsYes[1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1United KingdomDiscussed in relation to the instrumentality criterion for damage done by a ship.
Union Steamship Company of New Zealand v FergusonHigh Court of AustraliaYes(1969) 119 CLR 191AustraliaDiscussed in relation to the externality criterion for damage done by a ship.
Fournier v The Ship “Margaret Z”High Court, AucklandYes[1999] 3 NZLR 111New ZealandDiscussed in relation to the externality criterion for damage done by a ship.
The Bold BuccleughJudicial Committee of the Privy CouncilYes(1852) 7 Moo PC 267United KingdomArticulated the theory of the maritime lien for damage in cases of collision.
The “Simba”High CourtYes[1968-1970] SLR(R) 555SingaporeExplained the admiralty landscape.
The “Trade Fair”High CourtYes[1994] 3 SLR(R) 641SingaporeStates that the HCAJA is in effect a re-enactment of the AJA 1956.
The Vera Cruz (No 2)Court of AppealYes(1884) 9 PD 96United KingdomContemplated the occurrence of “damage done by a ship” within the meaning of s 7 of the 1861 Act to be external to the offending ship.
Elbe Shipping SA v The Ship Global PeaceFederal Court of AustraliaYes[2006] FAC 954AustraliaClarified the distinction and difference in approach between a claim that is premised on the existence of the maritime lien and a claim that is dependent on its nature and legal character to found admiralty jurisdiction.
Re Asian AtlasHong Kong Court of AppealYes[2008] 3 HKC 169Hong KongAccepted and adopted the externality criterion in The Rama.
Currie v M’KnightHouse of LordsYes[1897] AC 97United KingdomTo fall within the phrase ‘damage done by a ship’ not only must the damage be the direct result or natural consequence of something done by those engaged in the navigation of the ship but the ship itself must be the actual instrument by which the damage was done.
The IgorJustice WilmerYes[1956] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 271United KingdomNo maritime lien exists in respect of cargo damage in the carrying vessel.
The Pieve SuperiorePrivy CouncilYes(1874) LR 5 PC 482United KingdomCases of damage done to goods come within the meaning of s 6 but s 6 did not give the plaintiff a maritime lien against the ship in respect of such a claim.
The VictoriaButt JYes(1887) 12 PD 96United KingdomActions for damage to cargo were governed by s 6, and that s 7 did not apply to cargo on board the offending vessel.
The ZetaHouse of LordsYes[1893] AC 468United KingdomThe distinction between “damage” and “damage done by a ship” was noted.
The ThetaBruce JYes[1894] P280United KingdomThe word “damage” was construed to include damage to property and personal injury.
The MinervaBateson JYes[1933] P 224United KingdomA wire on a derrick of the Minerva broke causing the elevator it was lifting to fall onto a barge damaging it. Bateson J held that the damage to the barge was damage done by a ship because the ship or part of it was the active cause of the damage.
The “Nasco Gem”Court of AppealYes[2014] 2 SLR 63SingaporeClarified that an application to set aside a warrant of arrest was an interlocutory application within the meaning of para (e) of the Fifth Schedule to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.
The MyrtoBrandon JYes[1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 243United KingdomGeneral observations even though Brandon J was not dealing with a jurisdictional challenge.
The MoschanthyBrandon JYes[1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 37United KingdomThe question as to whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim in rem must be answered by reference to the nature of the plaintiff’s claim as put forward, without reference to the further point whether it is likely to succeed or not.
The “Eagle Prestige”High CourtYes[2010] 3 SLR 294SingaporeHaving concluded that the defence of time bar cannot be viewed as a “knockout blow” on the merits in the context of an abuse of the arrest process.
Treasure Valley Group Ltd v Saputra Teddy and another (Ultramarine Holdings Ltd, intervener)High CourtYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 358SingaporeHere, a finding of bad faith or material non-disclosure depends upon proof of facts that are themselves in issue in the action and inextricably connected.
The “River Rima”High CourtYes[1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 193United KingdomThe defendant argued that Hung Dao could not bring itself within test in The “River Rima” for a claim under s 3(1)(l) of the HCAJA.
The “Bass Reefer”Federal Court of AustraliaYes[1992] FCA 378AustraliaHung Dao’s case (whether rightly or wrongly) was premised on The “Bass Reefer”.
The “Alexandrea”High CourtYes[2002] 1 SLR(R) 812SingaporeThe defendant argued that cases like The River Rima and The Bass Reefer ought to have been cited to AR Teo but instead The “Alexandrea” which was an irrelevant case, was raised.
The “Bunga Melati 5”Court of AppealYes[2012] 4 SLR 546SingaporeAt the ex-parte hearing, a plaintiff has to show an arguable case on the law that it is entitled to invoke the court’s admiralty jurisdiction.
The “Vasiliy Golovnin”Court of AppealYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 994SingaporeVK Rajah JA in The Bunga Melati (CA) clarified that the appellate court in The “Vasiliy Golovnin” did not intend to lay down an additional merits requirement to the test prescribed in St Elefterio when applying for a warrant of arrest.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123, 2001 Rev Ed)Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)Singapore
Admiralty Court Act, 1861 (24 & 25 Vict, c 10)United Kingdom
Administration of Justice Act, 1956 (c 46) (UK)United Kingdom
Senior Courts Act 1981 (c 54) (UK)United Kingdom
Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c 27)United Kingdom
Admiralty Court Act, 1840 (3 & 4 Vict. c 65)United Kingdom
Hong Kong High Court Ordinance (Cap 4) (HK)Hong Kong
Australian Admiralty Act 1988 (Cth)Australia

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • In rem proceedings
  • Damage done by a ship
  • Externality criterion
  • Maritime lien
  • Time bar
  • Non-disclosure
  • Warrant of arrest
  • Container Lease Agreement

15.2 Keywords

  • Admiralty jurisdiction
  • Damage done by ship
  • Maritime law
  • Singapore High Court
  • Shipping containers

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Admiralty and Maritime Law90
Shipping Law90
Property Damage30
Litigation20
Breach of Contract20
Contract Law20
Property Law10

16. Subjects

  • Admiralty
  • Shipping
  • Jurisdiction