DSA Consultancy v The Eurohope: Action in Rem for Security in Foreign Proceedings

In DSA Consultancy (FZC) v Owner and/or Demise Charterer of the Vessel “Eurohope”, the High Court of Singapore, on 31 August 2017, addressed whether admiralty jurisdiction could be invoked by an action in rem solely to obtain security in aid of pending court proceedings in London. Chua Lee Ming J concluded that it could not, striking out the writ of summons and setting aside the warrant of arrest. The plaintiff's claim was for wrongful termination of a charterparty.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Writ of summons struck out and warrant of arrest set aside.

1.3 Case Type

Admiralty

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court held that admiralty jurisdiction cannot be invoked by an action in rem solely to obtain security for pending foreign court proceedings. Writ of summons struck out.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
DSA Consultancy (FZC)PlaintiffCorporationApplication for stay of proceedings dismissedLostLiew Teck Huat, Dafril Phua, Christopher Yee
Owner and/or Demise Charterer of the Vessel “Eurohope”DefendantOtherWrit of summons struck out and warrant of arrest set asideWonLeong Kah Wah, Lim Ruo Lin

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chua Lee MingJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Liew Teck HuatNiru & Co LLC
Dafril PhuaNiru & Co LLC
Christopher YeeNiru & Co LLC
Leong Kah WahRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Lim Ruo LinRajah & Tann Singapore LLP

4. Facts

  1. DSA Consultancy (FZC) chartered the vessel Eurohope from the defendant.
  2. The charterparty was governed by English law and contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the High Court of London.
  3. The defendant purported to terminate the charterparty.
  4. The plaintiff commenced an admiralty action in the High Court of London for wrongful termination of the charterparty.
  5. The plaintiff issued a writ in rem in Singapore and arrested the Vessel to obtain security in aid of the London proceedings.
  6. The plaintiff admitted it had no intention of proceeding with the action in Singapore.

5. Formal Citations

  1. DSA Consultancy (FZC) v The “Eurohope”, Admiralty in Rem No 63 of 2016, [2017] SGHC 218

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Defendant purported to terminate the charterparty.
Plaintiff commenced an admiralty action in the High Court of London for wrongful termination of the charterparty.
Plaintiff issued the writ in rem in the present action and arrested the Vessel.
Vessel was released after security was furnished.
Plaintiff filed Summons 2153 of 2016 for an order to stay all proceedings in the present action.
Defendant filed Summons 2377 of 2016 to strike out the writ and/or warrant of arrest.
Hearing date
Hearing date
Judgment date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Admiralty Jurisdiction
    • Outcome: The court held that admiralty jurisdiction cannot be invoked by an action in rem solely to obtain security for pending foreign court proceedings.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Action in rem for security in foreign proceedings
      • Abuse of process
  2. Wrongful Arrest
    • Outcome: The court declined to award damages for wrongful arrest or wrongful continuation of arrest.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Security in aid of foreign proceedings
  2. Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Wrongful Termination of Charterparty

10. Practice Areas

  • Admiralty
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Shipping

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
The “Cap Bon”N/AYes[1967] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 543United KingdomCited for the principle that the court only has jurisdiction to arrest ships to provide security for a judgment of the court.
The “Vasso” (formerly “Andria”)English Court of AppealYes[1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 235United KingdomCited with approval for the principle that the court's jurisdiction to arrest a ship in an action in rem should only be exercised to provide security in respect of the action in rem, and not any other proceedings.
The “ICL Raja Mahendra”High CourtYes[1998] 2 SLR(R) 922SingaporeCited with approval for the principle that the court's jurisdiction to arrest a ship in an action in rem should not be exercised for the purpose of providing security for an award or judgment elsewhere.
The “Reecon Wolf”N/AYes[2012] 2 SLR 289SingaporeCited to argue that the court has ordered security for foreign proceedings as a condition for the stay of Singapore proceedings.
The “Asian Plutus”N/AYes[1990] 1 SLR(R) 504SingaporeCited to argue that the court has ordered security for foreign proceedings as a condition for the stay of Singapore proceedings.
The Kiku PacificN/AYes[1999] 2 SLR(R) 91SingaporeCited for the legal principles regarding damages for wrongful arrest.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 70 r 15(1)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123, 2001 Rev Ed)Singapore
High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123, 2001 Rev Ed) s 3Singapore
High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123, 2001 Rev Ed) s 4Singapore
International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) s 7(1)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Action in rem
  • Admiralty jurisdiction
  • Writ of arrest
  • Security for foreign proceedings
  • Abuse of process
  • Charterparty
  • Wrongful termination
  • Letter of undertaking

15.2 Keywords

  • Admiralty
  • Action in rem
  • Jurisdiction
  • Security
  • Foreign proceedings
  • Singapore
  • Eurohope
  • Charterparty

16. Subjects

  • Admiralty
  • Shipping
  • Civil Procedure
  • Jurisdiction

17. Areas of Law

  • Admiralty Law
  • Shipping Law
  • Civil Procedure