Anglo-American Corp v London Steam-ship: Striking Out Claims for Breach of Contract & Misrepresentation
In Anglo-American Corporation Sdn Bhd v The London Steam-ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Ltd and others, the High Court of Singapore addressed Registrar's Appeal Nos 302 and 303 of 2016, which were appeals against the Assistant Registrar’s decisions in Summons No 1187 of 2016 and Summons No 901 of 2016. These summonses sought to strike out the claims of Anglo-American Corporation Sdn Bhd (AAC) in Suit No 268 of 2015. The claims arose from a collision between the United Endurance and the Sunbright. AAC asserted claims against the defendants for breach of contract and misrepresentation. The court struck out the misrepresentation claim and disallowed the inclusion of unjust enrichment and good faith claims, but did not strike out the contractual claim except for one express term.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
The Misrepresentation Claim against D1 and D2, as well as the claim in fraudulent misrepresentation against D4, are struck out. The proposed inclusion of the claim in unjust enrichment, and the claim regarding good faith against D1 and D2 are disallowed. The Contractual claim against D1 and D2 is not struck out, except for the pleading that there is an express term (c) in the alleged contract.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court addresses striking out claims for breach of contract and misrepresentation related to a ship collision, focusing on a standstill agreement.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anglo-American Corporation Sdn Bhd | Appellant | Corporation | Partial Win | Partial | |
| The London Steam-ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Partial Win | Partial | |
| A. Bilbrough & Co Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Partial Win | Partial | |
| Ince & Co | Respondent | Corporation | Neutral | Neutral | |
| Richard Ian Lovell | Respondent | Individual | Won | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- AAC owned the Sunbright, which collided with the United Endurance on 28 October 2006.
- D1 was the P&I insurer of the United Endurance; D2 was the manager of D1.
- D4, an English solicitor, was appointed by D2 to represent the owner of the United Endurance.
- AAC claimed D1 and D2 breached a contract by refusing to provide security for AAC’s claim.
- AAC also claimed D4 made misrepresentations on behalf of D1 and D2.
- The 22 January Email was the offer and the email reply from Mr Goh to D4 on the same day being the acceptance.
5. Formal Citations
- Anglo-American Corp Sdn Bhd v The London Steam-ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Ltd and others, Suit No 268 of 2015 (Registrar’s Appeal Nos 302 and 303 of 2016), [2018] SGHC 201
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Collision between the United Endurance and the Sunbright occurred in Singapore | |
| Telephone conversation between MH and D4 | |
| D4 sent email to Mr. Goh | |
| United Endurance was demolished | |
| Settlement offer made | |
| Solicitors representing the United Endurance confirmed that their clients would not be putting up security | |
| Owner of the United Endurance disputed liability and filed a counterclaim | |
| MH replied to queries posted by AAC’s solicitors | |
| Misrepresentation Claim was brought | |
| Registrar’s Appeal Nos 302 and 303 of 2016 | |
| Hearing date | |
| Hearing date | |
| Hearing date | |
| Hearing date | |
| Hearing date | |
| Hearing date | |
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court did not strike out the contractual claim against D1 and D2, except for the pleading that there is an express term (c) in the alleged contract.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to provide security
- Breach of standstill agreement
- Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court struck out the Misrepresentation Claim against D1 and D2, as well as the claim in fraudulent misrepresentation against D4.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- False representation of fact
- Statements of opinion
- Striking Out
- Outcome: The court considered the principles for striking out a claim under O 18 r 19(1)(b) and O 18 r 19(1)(d) of the Rules of Court and the inherent jurisdiction of the court.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Misrepresentation
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Shipping
- Insurance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The “Bunga Melati 5” | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 546 | Singapore | Cited for the test of whether a claim can be struck out under O 18 r 19(1)(b) of the ROC or under the inherent jurisdiction of the court, depending on whether the party’s action is plainly or obviously unsustainable. |
| Gabriel Peter & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin and others | N/A | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649 | Singapore | Cited as an example of an abuse of process, specifically bringing a claim for a collateral purpose. |
| Sembcorp Marine Ltd v PPL Holdings Pte Ltd and another and another appeal | N/A | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 193 | Singapore | Cited for the three requirements to be fulfilled to imply a term in fact. |
| The Moschanthy | N/A | Yes | [1971] 1 LLR 37 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a claimant is entitled to security based on the claimant’s reasonably arguable best case. |
| Sea-Land Service Inc v Cheong Fook Chee Vincent | N/A | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR(R) 250 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a forbearance to sue is good consideration for a promise where it is requested by the other contracting party. |
| Goh Chan Peng and others v Beyonics Technology Ltd and another and another appeal | N/A | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 592 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a forbearance to sue is good consideration for a promise where it is requested by the other contracting party. |
| Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank BA, Singapore Branch v Motorola Electronics Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 63 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that whether there is a valid acceptance depends on whether there is evidence of an objective intention to be bound. |
| Projection Pte Ltd v The Tai Ping Insurance Co Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR(R) 798 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it should be decided from the whole of the documents whether the parties did reach an agreement upon all material terms in such circumstances that the proper inference is that they agreed to be bound by those terms from that time onwards. |
| Tan Chin Seng v Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 307 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Misrepresentation Act does not alter the law as to what amounts to an actionable misrepresentation. |
| Panatron Pte Ltd and another v Lee Cheow Lee and another | N/A | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435 | Singapore | Cited for the elements that must be satisfied in a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation. |
| ACTAtek, Inc and another v Tembusu Growth Fund Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 335 | Singapore | Cited for the elements that must be satisfied in a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation. |
| Wee Chiaw Sek Anna v Ng Li-Ann Genevieve (sole executrix of the estate of Ng Hock Seng, deceased) and another | N/A | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 801 | Singapore | Cited for the elements to establish a claim in unjust enrichment. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 (S 706/2015) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- P&I insurer
- Collision
- Formal steps
- Security
- Settlement
- Standstill agreement
- Misrepresentation
- Striking out
15.2 Keywords
- Collision
- Breach of contract
- Misrepresentation
- Striking out
- Shipping
- Insurance
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
| Breach of Contract | 60 |
| Misrepresentation | 50 |
| Admiralty and Maritime Law | 40 |
| Unjust Enrichment | 40 |
| Arbitration | 30 |
| Jurisdiction | 25 |
| Estoppel | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Insurance Law
- Shipping Law