Big Port Service DMCC v Owner of Vessel “XIN CHANG SHU”: Leave to Appeal Wrongful Arrest Order
In Big Port Service DMCC v Owner of the vessel “XIN CHANG SHU”, the Singapore High Court addressed whether leave is required to appeal against an order for damages for wrongful arrest. Big Port Service DMCC commenced proceedings against the shipowner, claiming US$1,768,000 for the supply of bunkers. The vessel was arrested and subsequently released after security was furnished. The defendant applied to strike out the writ and for damages for wrongful arrest. The plaintiff applied for a stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration. The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against the order in Registrar’s Appeal No 225 of 2015 and found that the wrongful arrest order is an interlocutory order for which leave of court to appeal is required.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Admiralty
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court held leave to appeal is required for a wrongful arrest order. Plaintiff's application for extension of time to apply for leave dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Big Port Service DMCC | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application dismissed | Lost | Lawrence Teh, Khoo Eu Shen |
| Owner of the vessel “XIN CHANG SHU” | Defendant | Other | Won | Won | Toh Kian Sing, Koh See Bin, Jonathan Tan |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Steven Chong | Judge | 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 |
| Jonathan Tan | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
4. Facts
- The plaintiff commenced proceedings against the defendant shipowner claiming US$1,768,000 for the supply of bunkers to the Vessel.
- The plaintiff’s case was that OW Singapore was the defendant’s agent and had entered into the Contract on the defendant’s behalf.
- The Vessel was arrested by the plaintiff on 10 December 2014.
- The Vessel was released three days later, on 12 December 2014, after the defendant furnished security by way of payment into court in the sum of US$2.6m.
- The defendant applied to strike out the writ, set aside the warrant of arrest, and for damages for wrongful arrest.
- The plaintiff applied for a stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration.
- The plaintiff sought a declaration that it does not require leave of court to appeal against the Wrongful Arrest order.
5. Formal Citations
- The “Xin Chang Shu”, Admiralty in Rem No 239 of 2014(Summons No 1038 of 2016), [2016] SGHC 93
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Vessel arrested by the plaintiff | |
| Vessel released after security furnished | |
| Hearing of registrar’s appeals | |
| Judgment delivered for Registrar’s Appeal No 226 of 2015 | |
| Plaintiff filed notice of appeal in CA/CA No 2 of 2016 | |
| Plaintiff commenced CA/OS No 1 of 2016 seeking extension of time to file notice of appeal | |
| Defendant applied to set aside the notice of appeal | |
| Court of Appeal issued judgment in The Chem Orchid | |
| Plaintiff filed application seeking declaration that it does not require leave to appeal | |
| Prayer 3 dismissed summarily following the hearing | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Leave to Appeal
- Outcome: The court held that the Wrongful Arrest order is an “interlocutory order” for the purposes of para (e) of the Fifth Schedule of the SCJA for which leave of court to appeal is required.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2013] 2 SLR 880
- [2013] 3 SLR 354
- [2014] 2 SLR 63
- [1903] 1 KB 547
- [2006] 2 SLR(R) 525
- Extension of Time to Apply for Leave to Appeal
- Outcome: The court rejected the plaintiff’s application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against the Wrongful Arrest order.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2011] SGHC 228
- [2011] 2 SLR 196
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages
- Declaration that leave to appeal is not required
- Extension of time to apply for leave to appeal
9. Cause of Actions
- Wrongful Arrest
10. Practice Areas
- Admiralty
- Civil Litigation
- Appeals
11. Industries
- Shipping
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sinwa SS (HK) Co Ltd v Nordic International Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 54 | Singapore | Cited to show that the question of whether leave is required to lodge an appeal on interlocutory matters continues to come before the courts. |
| The Nasco Gem | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 63 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in respect of admiralty actions, the court must carry out the usual exercise of statutory interpretation and decide the question on the basis of first principles. |
| The Xin Chang Shu | High Court | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 1096 | Singapore | Cited for the facts of the substantial dispute between the parties. |
| Dorsey James Michael v World Sport Group Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 354 | Singapore | Cited for the structure of s 34 of the SCJA following the 2010 amendments, in determining matters that are non-appealable or appealable only with leave. |
| OpenNet Pte Ltd v Info-Communications Development Authority of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 2 SLR 880 | Singapore | Cited for the plain and ordinary meaning of “interlocutory application”. |
| Bozson v Altrincham Urban District Council | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1903] 1 KB 547 | England and Wales | Cited for the test to be applied in determining whether an order made in an application which would in the normal sense be regarded as an “interlocutory application” is also an “interlocutory order”. |
| Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu Man | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 525 | Singapore | Cited for the Bozson test and the principle that an interlocutory judgment with damages to be assessed is an interlocutory order. |
| White v Brunton | Queen's Bench | Yes | [1984] QB 570 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that where the hearing of an action is split into two parts, the order made at the conclusion of the first part is a final order for the purposes of the parties’ rights of appeal. |
| Strathmore Group Ltd v AM Fraser | Privy Council | Yes | [1992] 2 AC 172 | United Kingdom | Cited for adopting the reasoning of Sir John Donaldson MR in White v Brunton. |
| Downeredi Works Pte Ltd (formerly known as Works Infrastructure Pte Ltd) v Holcim (Singapore) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2009] 1 SLR(R) 1070 | Singapore | Cited for acknowledging the view that an interlocutory judgment is final in nature if it finally disposes of the substantive rights of the parties in so far as liability is concerned. |
| Lim Chi Szu Margaret and another v Risis Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 300 | Singapore | Cited for the obiter opinion that an interlocutory judgment is final in nature if it finally disposes of the substantive rights of the parties in so far as liability is concerned. |
| Aberdeen Asset Management Asia Ltd and another v Fraser & Neave Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR(R) 355 | Singapore | Cited with approval in Wellmix Organics at [22] for the requirement for an application for further arguments to be made under the old SCJA. |
| Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd v Mansource Interior Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 797 | Singapore | Cited for the case, and its treatment of the Bozson test, has been cited with approval in numerous Court of Appeal decisions handed down after the 2010 amendments. |
| The Chem Orchid and other appeals and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 2 SLR 50 | Singapore | Cited for the court's suggestion that in an appropriate case, where there is uncertainty over whether leave to appeal is required, the proper approach is for the appellant to seek a declaration from the Judge that it does not need leave to appeal. |
| BLQ v BLR | High Court | Yes | [2011] SGHC 228 | Singapore | Cited for the applicable principles are the same as those which govern an application to file a notice of appeal out of time. |
| Sun Jin Engineering Pte Ltd v Hwang Jae Woo | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 196 | Singapore | Cited for the factors which our courts have regard to in determining whether an extension of time to file a notice of appeal should be granted. |
| Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party and others and another suit | High Court | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 757 | Singapore | Cited for the test laid down in determining if the arguments cited by the plaintiff are without merit. |
| The Chem Orchid | High Court | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 1020 | Singapore | Cited for the content of foreign law is a question of fact which must be pleaded and proved. |
| Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 862 | Singapore | Cited for the indication that this is a case where there is a) a prima facie case of error; b) a question of general principle decided for the first time; or c) any question of importance upon which further argument and a decision of the Court of Appeal would be to the public advantage. |
| The Vasiliy Golovnin | High Court | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 994 | Singapore | Cited for the test and standard required for an award of damages for wrongful arrest. |
| The Eagle Prestige | High Court | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 294 | Singapore | Cited for further examining the test and standard required for an award of damages for wrongful arrest. |
| The Bunga Melati 5 | High Court | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 546 | Singapore | Cited for further examining the test and standard required for an award of damages for wrongful arrest. |
| Abdul Rahman bin Shariff v Abdul Salim bin Syed | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 138 | Singapore | Cited for the argument that the court reached a wrong conclusion on the evidence is insufficient to establish a prima facie error of law, let alone raise a question of general importance. |
| Au Wai Pang v AG and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 357 | Singapore | Cited for the analogous position under O 57 r 16(3) of the ROC. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 332, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Wrongful Arrest order
- Interlocutory order
- Leave to appeal
- Extension of time
- Bozson test
- Interlocutory application
- Final order
15.2 Keywords
- Admiralty
- Wrongful Arrest
- Leave to Appeal
- Interlocutory Order
- Singapore
- Shipping Law
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Admiralty
- Appeals
- Shipping Law
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Admiralty Law
- Appeals