Likpin International Ltd v Swiber Holdings Ltd: Admiralty Jurisdiction, Striking Out, and Costs

Likpin International Ltd appealed the High Court's decision to strike out its writ against Swiber Holdings Ltd and Swiber Offshore Construction Pte Ltd concerning a procurement agreement for a pipe-laying vessel. The Court of Appeal of Singapore, comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ, Chao Hick Tin JA, and Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, dismissed the appeal, finding the claims legally and factually unsustainable. The court also addressed the issue of costs, fixing the costs at $50,000 inclusive of disbursements.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Admiralty

1.4 Judgment Type

Ex-Tempore Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Likpin International Ltd appeals against the decision to strike out its writ against Swiber Holdings Ltd regarding a procurement agreement. The court dismissed the appeal and addressed costs.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Swiber Holdings LtdRespondentCorporationAppeal DismissedWon
Swiber Offshore Construction Pte LtdRespondentCorporationAppeal DismissedWon
LIKPIN INTERNATIONAL LTDAppellantCorporationAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeYes
Chao Hick TinJudge of AppealNo
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJudge of AppealNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Jimmy YimDrew & Napier LLC
Mahesh RaiDrew & Napier LLC
Ben ChiaDrew & Napier LLC
Kenneth TanKenneth Tan Partnership
Leonard ChiaAsia Ascent Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. Likpin International Ltd claimed a procurement agreement existed with Swiber Holdings Ltd.
  2. The agreement related to the intended charter of a pipe-laying vessel.
  3. Likpin alleged Swiber Offshore Construction Pte Ltd induced breach of the agreement.
  4. The High Court struck out Likpin's writ against the Swiber entities.
  5. Likpin appealed the High Court's decision.
  6. The Court of Appeal found Likpin's claims legally and factually unsustainable.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Likpin International Ltd v Swiber Holdings Ltd and another, , [2016] SGCA 48
  2. Likpin International Ltd v Swiber Holdings Ltd, Civil Appeal No 199 of 2015, Civil Appeal No 199 of 2015

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Registrar’s Appeal No 239 of 2015 heard in High Court
Admiralty in Personam No 113 of 2015 filed
Civil Appeal No 199 of 2015 heard in Court of Appeal

7. Legal Issues

  1. Admiralty Jurisdiction
    • Outcome: The court provisionally observed that the words “relating to” in s 3(1)(h) of the HC(AJ)A should be read narrowly to exclude a collateral or separate agreement independent of the charterparty or bill of lading unless it is “intrinsically related to the use or hire of a vessel”.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Interpretation of 'relating to' in High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act
      • Direct connection test for admiralty jurisdiction
  2. Striking Out
    • Outcome: The court affirmed the Judge’s decision that the Appellant’s claims against the Respondents are legally and factually unsustainable.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Claims legally and factually unsustainable
      • Plain and obvious cases for striking out
  3. Costs
    • Outcome: The court fixed costs at $50,000 all-in (inclusive of reasonable disbursements).
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Assessment of party-and-party costs
      • Application of Supreme Court Practice Directions and Costs Guidelines

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Inducement of Breach of Contract
  • Unlawful Interference with Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Admiralty
  • Shipping
  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • Shipping
  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Likpin International Ltd v Swiber Holdings Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2015] 5 SLR 962SingaporeAffirmed the Judge’s decision that the Appellant’s claims against the Respondents are legally and factually unsustainable.
The “Catur Samudra”High CourtNo[2010] 2 SLR 518SingaporeDiscussed the ambit of the expression “relating to” in s 3(1)(h) of the HC(AJ)A, specifically whether a guarantee was an agreement relating to the hire of ship.
Gatoil International Inc v Arkwright-Boston Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co (The Sandrina)House of LordsNo[1985] AC 255England and WalesEstablished the 'Direct Connection Test,' requiring a 'reasonably direct connection' between an agreement and the use or hire of a ship to fall under admiralty jurisdiction.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Supreme Court Practice Directions (1 January 2013 release)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123, 2001 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Procurement Agreement
  • Charterparty
  • Admiralty Jurisdiction
  • Striking Out
  • Costs
  • Pipe-laying vessel
  • Security for costs
  • Costs Guidelines

15.2 Keywords

  • Admiralty
  • Shipping
  • Singapore
  • Contract
  • Appeal
  • Costs
  • Striking Out

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Admiralty and Maritime Law75
Civil Practice65
Shipping Law60
Civil Procedure50
Costs40

16. Subjects

  • Admiralty
  • Contract Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Shipping