Janata Flour v Dream Star: Collision at Sea, COLREGS, & Negligence
In 2017, the High Court of Singapore heard a case between Janata Flour & Dal Mills Ltd, owner of the Meghna Princess, and the owner of the vessel Dream Star, regarding a collision in Singapore waters on 16 May 2014. The plaintiff claimed the Dream Star was solely responsible due to breaches of the COLREGS, while the defendant counterclaimed that the Meghna Princess was also at fault. The court found both vessels liable, apportioning liability 70:30 in favour of the defendant, citing breaches of COLREGS and misuse of VHF communication.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Interlocutory judgment for the defendant with damages to be assessed and apportioned 70:30 in favour of the defendant.
1.3 Case Type
Admiralty
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Collision between Meghna Princess and Dream Star in Singapore waters. Liability apportioned 70:30 due to COLREGS breaches and VHF misuse.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Janata Flour & Dal Mills Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Partial Loss | Partial | Navinder Singh |
| Owner of the vessel “DREAM STAR” | Defendant | Other | Partial Win | Partial | Richard Kuek Chong Yeow, Eugene Cheng Jiankai, Kevin Chan Wai Yi |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Navinder Singh | KSCGP Juris LLP |
| Richard Kuek Chong Yeow | Gurbani & Co LLC |
| Eugene Cheng Jiankai | Gurbani & Co LLC |
| Kevin Chan Wai Yi | Gurbani & Co LLC |
4. Facts
- The Meghna Princess and Dream Star collided in Singapore waters on 16 May 2014.
- The collision occurred in good weather and visibility.
- Both vessels alleged breaches of the COLREGS by the other.
- The Meghna Princess initiated VHF contact with the Dream Star shortly before the collision.
- The Meghna Princess was heading to the westbound channel of the TSS.
- The Dream Star was heading to the Eastern Boarding Ground B to pick up her pilot.
- The Meghna Princess failed to use ARPA to track the Dream Star.
5. Formal Citations
- The “Dream Star”, Admiralty in Rem No 9 of 2015, [2017] SGHC 220
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Collision between Meghna Princess and Dream Star | |
| Preliminary Act | |
| Captain Phelan appointed as plaintiff's expert witness | |
| Captain Phelan met with the crew | |
| Captain White's second report | |
| Joint statement by experts | |
| Amended Preliminary Act filed in court | |
| Trial began | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of COLREGS
- Outcome: The court found that both vessels breached COLREGS, contributing to the collision.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to keep proper lookout
- Failure to take early and substantial action to avoid collision
- Improper use of VHF radio
- Negligence
- Outcome: The court found that both vessels were negligent in their navigation, contributing to the collision.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to exercise good seamanship
- Failure to maintain a safe speed
- Failure to avoid risk of collision
- Apportionment of Liability
- Outcome: The court apportioned liability 70:30 in favour of the defendant, considering the culpability and causative potency of each vessel's actions.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Assessment of blameworthiness
- Assessment of causative potency
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
- Breach of Statutory Duty (COLREGS)
10. Practice Areas
- Admiralty
- Shipping
- Collision
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Shipping
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The “Sitarem” | N/A | No | [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 107 | N/A | Cited to illustrate that plots are illustrations of what might have happened, not what did happen. |
| The “Samco Europe” and “MSC Prestige” | N/A | Yes | [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 579 | N/A | Affirmed the principle that questions of navigational fault are to be assessed objectively. |
| Sudha Natrajan v The Bank of East Asia Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 141 | Singapore | Cited as a reminder that the court must consider how the evidence that is not produced is said to be unfavourable when drawing the adverse inference under s 116(g). |
| The “Lucile Bloomfield” | N/A | No | [1966] 2 Lloyd’s List Law Reports 239 | N/A | Cited regarding the definition of 'in sight' in the context of collision regulations. |
| The Main | N/A | Yes | (1886) 11 PD 132 | N/A | Cited to define 'coming up' in the context of overtaking. |
| The “Nowy Sacz” | N/A | Yes | [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 91 | N/A | Cited to support that an overtaking situation may arise even when there is no risk of collision. |
| The “General VII” | N/A | Yes | [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1 | N/A | Cited to support the proposition that there is some flexibility when it comes to the application of the overtaking rules. |
| The “Maloja II” | N/A | Yes | [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 48 | N/A | Cited regarding the dangers of using VHF to agree on the manner of passing and the importance of anti-collision techniques. |
| The Owners of the Cargo Lately Laden on Board the MV Sun Cross v The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the MV Rickmers Genoa | N/A | Yes | [2010] EWHC 1949 (Admlty) | N/A | Cited to support that reliance on VHF contact as the method of first resort in collision avoidance is to be deplored for it enhances the risk of collision instead of limiting it. |
| The “Aleksandr Marinesko” and “Quint Star” | N/A | Yes | [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 265 | N/A | Cited to support that vessels should navigate in accordance with the requirements of the COLREGS and not make “arrangements” over the VHF that are contrary the scheme of the regulations. |
| The “Nordlake” and The “Seaeagle” | N/A | Yes | [2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 656 | N/A | Cited to support that vessels should navigate in accordance with the requirements of the COLREGS and not make “arrangements” over the VHF that are contrary the scheme of the regulations. |
| The “Mineral Dampier” and “Hanjin Madras” | N/A | Yes | [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 419 | N/A | Cited regarding the misuse of VHF and its effect on the degree of culpability of the respective vessels. |
| The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship or Vessel “MCC Jakarta” v The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship or Vessel “Xin Nan Tai 77” | N/A | Yes | [2017] HKCFI 981 | N/A | Cited for setting out the principles applicable to the apportionment of liability for breach of the COLREGS. |
| The British Aviator | N/A | Yes | [1965] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 271 | N/A | Cited regarding the assessment of blameworthiness and causative potency of both vessels. |
| The Volute | N/A | Yes | [1922] 1 AC 129 | N/A | Cited regarding the broad way the court deals with questions of apportionment. |
| The “Golden Mistral” | N/A | Yes | [1986] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 407 | N/A | Cited to support that in waters where numerous small ships may be encountered, an efficient radar lookout must be employed. |
| The “Topaz” | N/A | Yes | [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 19 | N/A | Cited regarding the actions that a stand-on vessel may take in exceptional circumstances. |
| The “ER Wallonia” | N/A | Yes | [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 485 | N/A | Cited to support that stopping distance is an important consideration in the calculation of what a safe speed is. |
| The “Savina” | N/A | Yes | [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 141 | N/A | Cited to support that there is no higher duty on the give-way vessel to keep out of the way of the stand-on vessel than there is on the part of the stand-on vessel to maintain course and speed. |
| Stoomvart Maatschappy Nederland v Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company | N/A | Yes | (1880) 5 App Cas 876 | N/A | Cited to support the standard of care applicable in collision cases is the exercise of “good seamanship” which is tantamount to the exercise of reasonable skill or care expected of a competent/prudent seaman to prevent the vessel from doing injury. |
| The Koscierzyna | N/A | Yes | [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 124 | N/A | Cited to support that a vessel will be required to exercise the liberty to alter course and speed provided by rule 17(a)(ii) when good seamanship so requires. |
| Tan Mui Teck v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 139 | N/A | Cited regarding the court’s approach to resolving conflicting expert evidence. |
| Mitfam International Ltd v Motley Resources Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 1253 | N/A | Cited regarding the presumption in relation to electronic records provided in s 116A(1) of the Evidence Act. |
| The “Buccinum” | N/A | Yes | (1936) 55 Lloyd’s Law Rep 205 | N/A | Cited to support that only causative fault is relevant for apportionment. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Merchant Shipping Act (Cap 179, 1996 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Collisions at Sea) Regulations (Cap 179, Rg 10, 1990 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (Port) Regulations (Cap 170A, Rg 7, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Maritime Conventions Act, 1911 (Cap IA3, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- COLREGS
- Crossing Situation
- Overtaking Situation
- VHF Communication
- Good Seamanship
- ARPA
- Eastern Boarding Ground B
- Traffic Separation Scheme
- Give-way Vessel
- Stand-on Vessel
15.2 Keywords
- collision
- COLREGS
- negligence
- shipping
- admiralty
- maritime law
- VHF
- Singapore
16. Subjects
- Admiralty
- Shipping
- Collision
- Negligence
- Maritime Law
17. Areas of Law
- Admiralty Law
- Shipping Law
- Collision Law
- Civil Procedure