Big Port Service DMCC v China Shipping: Wrongful Arrest & Agency in Bunker Supply Dispute
In a decision by the High Court of Singapore on 2015-08-11, Assistant Registrar Teo Guan Kee dismissed Big Port Service DMCC's claim against China Shipping Container Lines for payment of bunker fuel supplied to the vessel "Xin Chang Shu." Big Port Service sought to establish liability through an agency relationship, arguing that OW Singapore acted as China Shipping's agent. The court struck out the action, finding no good arguable case for the existence of such an agency relationship and deemed the arrest of the vessel wrongful. The court also dismissed Big Port Service's application for a stay of proceedings in favor of arbitration.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Striking-Out Application allowed; Stay Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Admiralty
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
High Court dismisses Big Port Service's claim against China Shipping for bunker fuel, finding no agency relationship and wrongful vessel arrest.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BIG PORT SERVICE DMCC | Plaintiff | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Lost | Lawrence Teh, Khoo Eu Shen |
| CHINA SHIPPING CONTAINER LINES | Defendant | Corporation | Application Allowed in Part | Partial | Toh Kian Sing, Koh See Bin |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Teo Guan Kee | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lawrence Teh | Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Khoo Eu Shen | Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Toh Kian Sing | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Koh See Bin | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
4. Facts
- Big Port Service DMCC supplied 4,000 MT of marine bunker fuel to the vessel "Xin Chang Shu."
- China Shipping Container Lines owned the vessel "Xin Chang Shu."
- OW Singapore requested a quotation from Big Port Service for the bunker fuel.
- Big Port Service and OW Singapore agreed on a price of USD 442 per MT.
- China Shipping and OW China agreed on a price of USD 469 per MT.
- China Shipping was unaware of OW Singapore's involvement until after the supply.
- Big Port Service arrested the vessel in Singapore to secure its claim.
5. Formal Citations
- Xin Chang Shu, ADM No 239 of 2014, [2015] SGHCR 17
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| OW Singapore requested a quotation for bunker fuel supply to the Vessel. | |
| Big Port Service and OW Singapore agreed on the supply of 4,000 MT of marine bunker fuel. | |
| OW China and China Shipping agreed on the supply of 4,000 MT of marine bunker fuel. | |
| 4,000 MT of marine bunker fuel was supplied to the Vessel. | |
| Big Port Service commenced action against China Shipping. | |
| The Vessel was arrested in Singapore. | |
| The Vessel was released following the provision of security. | |
| Big Port Service filed Summons No. 6218 of 2014 for stay of proceedings. | |
| China Shipping filed Summons 6364 of 2014 seeking to set aside the Warrant of Arrest. | |
| The court dismissed Summons 6218 and allowed Summons 6364 in part. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Agency by Estoppel
- Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiff failed to establish a good arguable case for agency by estoppel.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Representation by conduct
- Knowledge of mistaken belief
- Duty to disclose
- Wrongful Arrest
- Outcome: The court declined to award damages for wrongful arrest.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Malice
- Gross negligence
- Unwarranted action
- Duty of Full and Frank Disclosure
- Outcome: The court found that there was no material non-disclosure on the part of the Plaintiff at the Arrest Hearing.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Material facts
- Threshold of disclosure
- Misleading the court
- Invocation of Admiralty Jurisdiction
- Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiff had met the requirement to identify the Defendant as the relevant person.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Identification of relevant person
- Good arguable case
- Processoral abuse
8. Remedies Sought
- Payment for Goods Sold and Delivered
- Damages for Wrongful Arrest
- Arrest of Vessel
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Wrongful Arrest
10. Practice Areas
- Admiralty Litigation
- Commercial Litigation
- Arbitration
- Shipping Law
11. Industries
- Shipping
- Bunker Fuel Supply
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armagas Ltd v Mundogas SA | Court of Appeal of England and Wales | Yes | [1986] 1 AC 717 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle of ostensible authority and how it is represented through the allowance by a principal of a state of affairs. |
| Crabb v Dunn | Chancery Division | Yes | [1976] 1 Ch 179 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that those entrusted with negotiation conduct must be treated as having the authority they purport to exercise. |
| The Bunga Melati 5 | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] SGCA 46 | Singapore | Extensively discussed and distinguished regarding the requirements for invoking admiralty jurisdiction and striking out actions. |
| Yongnam Development Pte Ltd v Somerset Development Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] SGCA 35 | Singapore | Cited for the prerequisites for acquiescence to constitute estoppel, specifically the knowledge of the plaintiff's mistaken belief. |
| Willmott v Barber | High Court of Justice | Yes | (1880) 15 Ch 96 | England and Wales | Cited for the five prerequisites for acquiescence to constitute estoppel. |
| The Titan Unity | High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHCR 28 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the existence of an arbitration agreement needs only to be shown on a good arguable case. |
| The Eagle Prestige | High Court | Yes | [2010] SGHC 93 | Singapore | Cited regarding the non-disclosure of defenses and abuse of process in ex parte applications for warrants of arrest. |
| The Vasiliy Golovnin | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 994 | Singapore | Extensively cited regarding the duty of full and frank disclosure in applications for warrants of arrest and damages for wrongful arrest. |
| The Vasiliy Golovnin | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] SGCA 39 | Singapore | Cited regarding the duty of full and frank disclosure in applications for warrants of arrest and damages for wrongful arrest. |
| The AA V | High Court | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 664 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a failure to discharge the duty of full and frank disclosure can be an independent ground for setting aside an arrest. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| High Court Admiralty Jurisdiction Act (Cap 123) | Singapore |
| International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Marine Bunker Fuel
- Warrant of Arrest
- Agency by Estoppel
- Ostensible Authority
- Full and Frank Disclosure
- Relevant Person
- Good Arguable Case
- Striking Out
- Stay of Proceedings
- Admiralty Jurisdiction
15.2 Keywords
- Admiralty
- Shipping
- Bunker Fuel
- Wrongful Arrest
- Agency
- Singapore
- High Court
16. Subjects
- Admiralty
- Shipping
- Agency
- Contract
- Civil Procedure
- Arbitration
17. Areas of Law
- Admiralty Law
- Agency Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Arbitration Law