Hung Dao v Vinalines Pioneer: Admiralty Jurisdiction, Damage by Ship, Container Loss
In Hung Dao Container Joint Stock Company v The "Vinalines Pioneer", the High Court of Singapore addressed the Defendant's application to set aside an admiralty writ in rem and strike out the claim related to the sinking of the vessel "Phu Tan" and the loss of containers. The Plaintiff, Hung Dao, claimed against the Defendant, Vietnam National Shipping Lines (Vinalines), for the loss of 111 containers. The court, presided over by Jay Lee Yuxian AR, dismissed the Defendant's application, finding that admiralty jurisdiction was properly invoked and the claim should not be struck out. The court found that the Plaintiff's claim fell within section 3(1)(d) of the High Court Admiralty Jurisdiction Act.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Defendant's application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Admiralty
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court addresses admiralty jurisdiction in a claim for lost containers, focusing on 'damage done by a ship' and wrongful arrest.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HUNG DAO, CONTAINER JOINT STOCK COMPANY | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application granted | Won | |
| VIETNAM NATIONAL SHIPPING LINES | Defendant | Corporation | Application dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Jay Lee Yuxian | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The vessel “Phu Tan” sank in the Tonkin Gulf on or around 16 December 2010.
- The Plaintiff, Hung Dao, supplied containers used on the “Phu Tan”.
- The Defendant, Vinalines, owned the “Phu Tan” and ‘The “Vinalines Pioneer”’.
- The Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a Container Lease Agreement in June 2010.
- 111 containers leased to the Defendant were loaded on the “Phu Tan”.
- The sinking of the “Phu Tan” resulted in the loss of lives and all containers on board.
- The Plaintiff arrested the vessel The “Vinalines Pioneer” on 9 June 2013.
5. Formal Citations
- The “Vinalines Pioneer”, Admiralty in Rem No 163 of 2013 (Summons No 4029 of 2013), [2015] SGHCR 1
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Container Lease Agreement no. 500710T/2010/HD-VCSC entered into. | |
| Vessel “Phu Tan” capsized and sank. | |
| Defendant informed Plaintiff of vessel sinking and container loss. | |
| Plaintiff filed proceedings in Vietnam. | |
| Defendant filed an Explanation in Vietnamese proceedings. | |
| Plaintiff filed proceedings in Singapore. | |
| Plaintiff obtained warrant of arrest. | |
| Vessel The “Vinalines Pioneer” arrested. | |
| Arrested Vessel released upon security being furnished. | |
| Letter of Undertaking dated returned to the Defendant | |
| Plaintiff filed Statement of Claim. | |
| Defendant entered appearance. | |
| Amended Statement of Claim served on Defendant. | |
| Hearing of Defendant's application. | |
| Hearing of Defendant's application. | |
| Further hearing dates taken. | |
| Hearing resumed. | |
| Final arguments made in the application. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Admiralty Jurisdiction
- Outcome: The court found that admiralty jurisdiction was properly invoked under section 3(1)(d) of the HC(AJ)A.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Damage Done by a Ship
- Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiff's claim fell within the scope of 'damage done by a ship' under section 3(1)(d) of the HC(AJ)A.
- Category: Substantive
- Material Non-Disclosure
- Outcome: The court found no material non-disclosure by the Plaintiffs in the Arrest Affidavit or at the Arrest Hearing.
- Category: Procedural
- Striking Out
- Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiff's claim should not be struck out under O 18 r 19 of the ROC or the inherent jurisdiction of the court.
- Category: Procedural
- Time Bar
- Outcome: The court found that the Defendant had not shown that the Plaintiff’s claim is plainly and obviously unsustainable because of the Defendant’s complete time bar defence under Vietnamese law.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of admiralty writ
- Striking out of admiralty writ and statement of claim
- Setting aside the arrest of The “Vinalines Pioneer”
- Return of Letter of Undertaking
- Damages for wrongful arrest
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Negligence
- Conversion
- Wrongful Interference
- Breach of Duty
- Bailment
10. Practice Areas
- Admiralty
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Shipping
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The “Bunga Melati 5” | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 546 | Singapore | Outlines the 5-step test for invoking admiralty jurisdiction under the HC(AJ)A. |
| The “Rama” | English Court | No | [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 291 | England | Sets out the 3-criteria test for 'damage done by a ship', including the externality requirement. |
| The “Escherscheim” | English Court | No | [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1 | England | Discusses the requirements for 'damage done by a ship', focusing on direct result and the ship as the instrument of damage. |
| The “Escherscheim” | Court of Appeal | No | [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 81 | England | Discusses the requirements for 'damage done by a ship', focusing on direct result and the ship as the instrument of damage. |
| The “Asian Atlas” | Hong Kong Court | No | [2008] 3 HKC 169 | Hong Kong | Applies the Rama test in the context of damage sustained by the ship herself. |
| The “Tolten” | English Court | No | [1946] P 135 | England | States that 'cause of damage' is not limited to collisions but includes damage caused by negligent navigation. |
| The “Regis” | Australian High Court | Yes | 61 CLR 688 | Australia | Deals with in rem jurisdiction over a claim for negligent navigation resulting in capsizing and personal injury. |
| Union Steamship Co of New Zealand Ltd v Ferguson | Australian High Court | No | 119 CLR 191 | Australia | Authority regarding the interpretation of damage done by a ship. |
| Fournier v The Ship “Margaret Z” | New Zealand High Court | Yes | [1999] 3 NZLR 111 | New Zealand | Considers whether an injured person or object must be 'external to the ship' for a claim under section 3(1)(d). |
| Ultimate Lady Ltd v The Ship “Northern Challenger” | New Zealand Court | No | AD 7/00 | New Zealand | Case where Margaret Z and The Regis were cited but not rejected. |
| The Permina 108 | Singapore Court | No | [1974 – 1976] SLR (R) 850 | Singapore | Illustrates the point that Singapore courts have been quite prepared to depart from English decisions in the realm of shipping and admiralty law to evolve its own jurisprudence in this area. |
| The “Mezen” | High Court | No | [2006] SGHC 35 | Singapore | Interprets 'goods carried in a ship' under section 3(1)(g) as referring to goods carried as cargo. |
| The Steve Irwin | Scottish Court | No | [2011] CSOH 112 | Scotland | Considers whether tuna and transportation cages qualify as 'goods carried in a ship'. |
| The “River Rima” | House of Lords | No | [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 193 | United Kingdom | Examines section 20(2)(m) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (in pari materia to section 3(1)(l) of the HC(AJ)A) and holds that containers are 'goods' within the meaning of the paragraph. |
| The “Bass Reefer” | Australian Court | No | [1992] FCA 378 | Australia | Considers The River Rima and concludes that the specification of the ship need not be express but could be implied from the circumstances at the time when the supply was actually made to the ship. |
| Patrick Steverdores No 2 Pty Ltd v MV “Turakina” | Australian Court | No | [1998] FCA 16900 | Australia | Applies the approach of implied identification of the ship as set out in the The Bass Reefer and agreed that the question was whether at the time the services are provided (and not at the time the contract is entered into), there was sufficient identification of the ship. |
| The “Alexandrea” | Singapore Court | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 812 | Singapore | Specifically referred to The River Rima analysis on the first kind of contract and accepted it as correct. |
| The Eagle Prestige | High Court | No | [2010] 3 SLR 294 | Singapore | Explains the interplay of legal principles involved in setting aside an arrest, striking out and material non-disclosure. |
| The Bunga Melati 5 | High Court | No | [2011] 4 SLR 1017 | Singapore | Explains the interplay of legal principles involved in setting aside an arrest, striking out and material non-disclosure. |
| The “Rainbow Spring” | Singapore Court | No | [2003] 3 SLR (R) 362 | Singapore | States that the duty to make full and frank disclosure to the court was an important bulwark against the abuse of the arrest process. |
| The “Vasiliy Golovnin” | Court of Appeal | No | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 994 | Singapore | Explains that the issue of material non-disclosure should be examined from two aspects: first, what ought to have been disclosed i.e. content and scope of disclosure, and second, the sufficiency of disclosure i.e. the threshold of disclosure. |
| The “Ferbienti” | Singapore Court | No | [1994] 3 SLR(R) 574 | Singapore | States that the court retains an overriding discretion whether or not to set aside an arrest for non-disclosure. |
| The “H156” | Singapore Court | No | [1999] 2 SLR(R) 419 | Singapore | States that matters of foreign law are treated as factual matters. |
| Poh Soon Kiat v Desert Palace (trading as Caesars Palace) | Court of Appeal | No | [2010] 1 SLR 1129 | Singapore | States that matters of foreign law are treated as factual matters. |
| Gabriel Peters & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin | Court of Appeal | No | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649 | Singapore | Explains that a minute examination of each of the experts’ opposing views, or the documents and the facts they rely on was not appropriate in the context of a striking out application. |
| Low Tuck Kwong v Sukamto SIA | Singapore Court | No | [2013] 1 SLR 1016 | Singapore | States that the “Double Actionability Rule” required a plaintiff to show that their claims are actionable under both Singapore law and the law of the other relevant jurisdiction. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| High Court Admiralty Jurisdiction Act | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Ed) | Singapore |
| Foreign Limitations Periods Act Rev. Ed. 2013 (cap. 111A) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Admiralty jurisdiction
- Writ in rem
- Material non-disclosure
- Wrongful arrest
- Container Lease Agreement
- Damage done by a ship
- Time bar
- Double actionability
- Force majeure
- Equipment Interchange Receipts
15.2 Keywords
- Admiralty jurisdiction
- Container loss
- Damage by ship
- Wrongful arrest
- Singapore High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Admiralty and Maritime Law | 95 |
| Arrest of Vessel | 90 |
| Material non-disclosure | 70 |
| Wrongful arrest | 60 |
| Litigation | 50 |
| Civil Procedure | 40 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
| Breach of Contract | 25 |
| Property Damage | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Admiralty
- Shipping Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law