Wartsila Singapore Pte Ltd v Lau Yew Choong: Agency, Contractual Terms, Economic Duress, Negligence
In two related suits, the High Court of Singapore heard claims by Geniki Shipping Pte Ltd and Aga-Intra Sdn Bhd against Wartsila Singapore Pte Ltd (Suit 521) for damages resulting from an engine breakdown after repairs, and a claim by Wartsila against Lau Yew Choong (Suit 168) for unpaid repair costs. The court, presided over by Belinda Ang Saw Ean J, dismissed Geniki Shipping's claim due to a lack of established causation between Wartsila's alleged negligence and the engine failure. The court found Lau Yew Choong liable for the outstanding repair costs based on a Letter of Undertaking.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Plaintiffs' action in Suit 521 dismissed. Judgment for Plaintiff in Suit 168.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Wartsila sues for repair costs; Geniki Shipping claims damages for engine breakdown. Court dismisses Geniki's claim due to lack of causation.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WARTSILA SINGAPORE PTE LTD | Plaintiff, Defendant | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| LAU YEW CHOONG | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff | Lost | |
| GENIKI SHIPPING PTE LTD | Plaintiff | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| AGA-INTRA SDN BHD | Plaintiff | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Wartsila performed repairs on the Geniki Sarawak's main engine from 25 November 2010 to 31 December 2010.
- The vessel's main engine failed on 19 March 2011, after operating for 1,104.78 hours after the 2010 repairs.
- Wartsila carried out further repairs to the crankshaft and bedplate in March-June 2011.
- A Letter of Undertaking (LOU) was provided by Lau Yew Choong to guarantee payment for the 2011 repairs.
- The Braemar Report listed several contributing factors to the engine breakdown, including lubrication oil contamination.
- The plaintiffs alleged that Wartsila failed to carry out crankshaft deflections after sea trials.
- The plaintiffs alleged that an overspeed incident occurred on 11 January 2011.
5. Formal Citations
- Wartsila Singapore Pte Ltd v Lau Yew Choong and another suit, Suit No 168 of 2013 and Suit No 521 of 2013, [2017] SGHC 76
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Wartsila carried out repairs to Geniki Sarawak's main engine | |
| Quotation dated 26 November 2010 | |
| First sea trial conducted | |
| Main engine almost came to overspeed | |
| Subsequent sea trial | |
| Vessel's main engine failed | |
| Wartsila's personnel attended on board the vessel | |
| Guangzhou Diesel Factory investigated the engine breakdown | |
| Maritec Pte Ltd oil analysis report | |
| Wartsila and Aga-Intra jointly appointed Braemar Technical Services Ltd | |
| DNV's first report | |
| Aga-Intra paid Wartsila SGD 100,000 | |
| Vessel scheduled for basin and sea trials | |
| Vessel released after repairs completed | |
| DNV's second report | |
| Braemar Report issued | |
| Aga-Intra instructed TCL Engineering & Consulting Services Pte Ltd | |
| Wartsila issued a letter of demand | |
| TCL's report dated 1 November 2012 | |
| Suit No 168 of 2013 filed | |
| Suit No 521 of 2013 filed | |
| Trial began | |
| Trial | |
| Trial | |
| Trial | |
| Trial | |
| Trial | |
| Trial | |
| Trial | |
| Trial | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Causation
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish causation between Wartsila's alleged negligence and the engine breakdown.
- Category: Substantive
- Economic Duress
- Outcome: The court held that the Letter of Undertaking was not provided under economic duress.
- Category: Substantive
- Incorporation of Contractual Terms
- Outcome: The court held that Wartsila's General Terms and Conditions were not incorporated into the repair contract.
- Category: Substantive
- Agency Relationship
- Outcome: The court held that Geniki Shipping acted as an agent for Aga-Intra.
- Category: Substantive
- Validity of Letter of Undertaking
- Outcome: The court held that the Letter of Undertaking was valid and enforceable.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Negligence
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Admiralty and Shipping
- Contract Disputes
11. Industries
- Shipping
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family Food Court (a firm) v Seah Boon Lock and another (trading as Boon Lock Duck and Noodle House) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 272 | Singapore | Cited for the doctrine of the undisclosed principal. |
| Chia Kok Leong v Prosperland Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 2 SLR(R) 484 | Singapore | Cited regarding the performance interest approach to contractual damages. |
| Magellan Spirit ApS v Vitol SA “Magellan Spirit” | EWHC | Yes | [2016] EWHC 454 (Comm) | England and Wales | Cited for the distinction between an undisclosed principal and an unidentified principal. |
| Rhesa Shipping Company SA v Edmunds (The Popi M) | Unknown | Yes | [1985] 1 WLR 948 | Unknown | Cited for the burden of proof on causation. |
| Clarke Beryl Claire v SilkAir (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 1136 | Singapore | Cited for the task to prove their own case on a balance of probabilities. |
| Surender Singh s/o Jagdish Singh and another (administrators of the estate of Narindar Kaur d/o Sarwan Singh, deceased) v Li Man Kay and others | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 428 | Singapore | Cited for the court deliberates on probabilities and not possibilities. |
| Y.E.S. F&B Group Pte Ltd v Soup Restaurant Singapore Pte Ltd (formerly known as Soup Restaurant (Causeway Point) Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 1187 | Singapore | Cited for the principles governing the interpretation of contractual terms. |
| Yap So On v Ding Pei Zhen | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] SGCA 68 | Singapore | Cited for the principles governing the interpretation of contractual terms. |
| Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [1989] 1 QB 433 | Unknown | Cited for the 'red hand' rule. |
| Kenwell & Co Pte Ltd v Southern Ocean Shipbuilding Co Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 583 | Singapore | Cited for the incorporation of standard conditions. |
| Press Automation Technology Pte Ltd v Trans-Link Exhibition Forwarding Pte Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2003] 1 SLR(R) 712 | Unknown | Cited for the red-hand rule. |
| Abani Trading Pte Ltd v BNP Paribas and another appeal | Unknown | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 909 | Unknown | Cited for the red-hand rule. |
| Rogers and another v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd and another | Unknown | Yes | [1987] 1 QB 933 | Unknown | Cited for the warranty clause. |
| Eastern Resource Management Services Ltd v Chiu Teng Construction Co Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHC 114 | Singapore | Cited for economic duress. |
| Tjong Very Sumito and others v Chan Sing En and others | Unknown | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 953 | Unknown | Cited for the test for economic duress. |
| Sharon Global Solutions Pte Ltd v LG International (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 233 | Unknown | Cited for the distinction between threatened contractual breaches which amount to duress and those that do not. |
| CTN Cash and Carry Ltd v Gallaher Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [1994] 4 All ER 714 | Unknown | Cited for economic duress. |
| The “Dwima 1” | Unknown | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR(R) 927 | Unknown | Cited for ship repairers are entitled to the self-help remedy of asserting a common law possessory lien against the vessel to the sum of the outstanding repair costs. |
| Pan-United Shipyard Pte Ltd v The Chase Manhattan Bank (National Association) | Unknown | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 703 | Unknown | Cited for ship repairers are entitled to the self-help remedy of asserting a common law possessory lien against the vessel to the sum of the outstanding repair costs. |
| Tappenden v Artus and another | Unknown | Yes | [1964] 2 QB 185 | Unknown | Cited for the remedy can be excluded by the terms of the contract made with the repairer either expressly or by necessary implication from other terms which are inconsistent with the exercise of a possessory lien. |
| Forth v Simpson | Unknown | Yes | (1849) 13 QB 680 | Unknown | Cited for the terms of the contract that diametrically contradict the premises upon which a possessory lien is exercised, ie, a continuing right of possession and a right to payment. |
| Your Response Ltd v Datateam Business Media Ltd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] EWCA Civ 281 | England and Wales | Cited for a data manager could not be said to exercise a lien over data because the data was made freely available by the provision of a password to a publisher and that was “inconsistent with the… kind of exclusive control that would equate to the continuing possession required for the exercise of a lien”. |
| Gay Choon Ing v Loh Sze Ti Terence Peter and another appeal | Unknown | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 332 | Unknown | Cited for detriment taken on by the promisee can constitute good consideration. |
| Tsu Soo Sin nee Oei Karen v Ng Yee Hoon | High Court | Yes | [2008] SGHC 30 | Singapore | Cited for there is no need for the consideration to flow from the promisee to the promisor. Instead, consideration may move from the promisee to a third party. |
| Hillas & Co Ltd v Arcos Ltd | Unknown | Yes | (1932) 147 LT 503 | Unknown | Cited for courts do not expect documents prepared by the parties to be drafted with utmost precision and certainty. |
| Gardner Smith (SE Asia) Pte Ltd v Jee Woo Trading Pte Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR(R) 950 | Unknown | Cited for courts do not expect documents prepared by the parties to be drafted with utmost precision and certainty. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Crankshaft
- Engine Breakdown
- Letter of Undertaking
- Lubrication Oil
- Overspeed
- Causation
- Economic Duress
- Agency
- Negligence
15.2 Keywords
- Agency
- Contractual Terms
- Economic Duress
- Negligence
- Engine Breakdown
- Causation
- Letter of Undertaking
- Shipping Law
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Causation | 90 |
| Contract Law | 85 |
| Negligence | 75 |
| Agency Law | 70 |
| Breach of Contract | 60 |
| Contracts | 60 |
| Ship Repair | 60 |
| Damages | 50 |
| Warranty | 40 |
| Commercial Law | 40 |
| Torts | 40 |
| Duress | 40 |
| Evidence | 40 |
| Economic Duress | 40 |
| Agency and Distributorships | 30 |
| Letter of undertaking | 30 |
| Possessory Lien | 30 |
| Mistake | 30 |
| Personal Injury | 20 |
| Corporate Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Agency Law
- Tort Law
- Shipping
- Civil Litigation