The “URSUS”: Stay of In Personam Proceedings Pending Arbitration
In The “URSUS” and other matters, the Singapore High Court addressed six admiralty proceedings concerning applications to dismiss the suits due to the absence of a served statement of claim or, alternatively, to stay the suits pending arbitration. The Plaintiff, Harms Bergung, Transport und Heavylift GmbH & Co KG, had issued in rem writs against the Defendants' vessels. The court dismissed the application to dismiss the suits but granted a stay of the in personam aspects of the suits pending arbitration, reasoning that the in rem jurisdiction had not been invoked and the vessels were not party to the arbitration agreement.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Prayer to dismiss the suits was dismissed; prayer for proceedings to be stayed pending arbitration was granted in part, ordering a stay of the in personam aspects of the suits.
1.3 Case Type
Admiralty
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court granted a stay of in personam proceedings pending arbitration, dismissing the application to dismiss the suits due to the absence of a served statement of claim.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harms Bergung, Transport und Heavylift GmbH & Co KG | Plaintiff | Corporation | Prayer to dismiss the suits was dismissed; prayer for proceedings to be stayed pending arbitration was granted in part | Partial | Mary-Anne Chua |
| The "URSUS" | Defendant | Other | Stay of in personam aspects of the Suits | Partial | Khoo Eu Shen |
| The "URANUS" | Defendant | Other | Stay of in personam aspects of the Suits | Partial | Khoo Eu Shen |
| The "TAURUS" | Defendant | Other | Stay of in personam aspects of the Suits | Partial | Khoo Eu Shen |
| The "ORCUS" | Defendant | Other | Stay of in personam aspects of the Suits | Partial | Khoo Eu Shen |
| The "MAGNUS" | Defendant | Other | Stay of in personam aspects of the Suits | Partial | Khoo Eu Shen |
| The "JANUS" | Defendant | Other | Stay of in personam aspects of the Suits | Partial | Khoo Eu Shen |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Justin Yeo | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Mary-Anne Chua | Joseph Tan Jude Benny LLP |
| Khoo Eu Shen | Rodyk & Davidson LLC |
4. Facts
- Plaintiff issued in rem writs against the Defendants’ vessels to preserve the right to arrest the Vessels for security in an arbitration to be held in Hamburg.
- Defendants entered appearance gratis on 15 December 2014.
- Plaintiff has not filed any statement of claim in the Suits.
- Plaintiff commenced arbitration proceedings against the “URSUS” in Hamburg and intended to commence arbitration proceedings against the other Vessels there as well.
- The writs have not been served on the Vessels.
5. Formal Citations
- The “URSUS”, Adm No 240 of 2014 (Summons No 75 of 2015), Adm No 241 of 2014 (Summons No 79 of 2015), Adm No 242 of 2014 (Summons No 77 of 2015), Adm No 243 of 2014 (Summons No 78 of 2015), Adm No 244 of 2014 (Summons No 80 of 2015), Adm No 245 of 2014 (Summons No 83 of 2015), [2015] SGHCR 7
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff issued in rem writs against the Defendants’ vessels | |
| Defendants entered appearance gratis | |
| Plaintiff filed affidavits stating it never intended to have the dispute heard in Singapore courts | |
| Plaintiff’s Written Submissions dated | |
| Defendants were aware that the dispute was to be dealt with at arbitration proceedings | |
| High Court dismissed prayer 1 of the Summonses and granted prayer 2 in part |
7. Legal Issues
- Stay of Proceedings
- Outcome: The court granted a stay of the in personam aspects of the suits pending arbitration.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Invocation of in rem jurisdiction
- International arbitration agreement
- Dismissal of Action
- Outcome: The court dismissed the prayer to dismiss the suits.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to serve statement of claim
8. Remedies Sought
- Dismissal of Suits
- Stay of Suits Pending Arbitration
9. Cause of Actions
- Admiralty Action In Rem
10. Practice Areas
- Admiralty
- Arbitration
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Shipping
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The “Engedi” | High Court | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 409 | Singapore | Cited for the threshold requirements that need to be met before a court is bound to stay legal proceedings in favour of international arbitration. |
| The “Fierbinti” | High Court | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR(R) 574 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that service of an in rem writ may be effected by service on the ship, or by arresting the ship. |
| The “Bolbina” | High Court | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR(R) 894 | Singapore | Cited for the three possible scenarios which may arise in an admiralty action in rem. |
| The “ICL Raja Mahendra” | N/A | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 922 | Singapore | Cited as an example of the Plaintiff’s right to arrest the Vessels as security for foreign arbitration proceedings. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- In rem
- In personam
- Arbitration
- Stay of proceedings
- Protective measure
- Appearance gratis
- Statement of claim
15.2 Keywords
- Admiralty
- Arbitration
- Stay of proceedings
- In rem
- In personam
16. Subjects
- Admiralty
- Arbitration
17. Areas of Law
- Admiralty Law
- Arbitration Law
- Civil Procedure