Arctic Bridge v Tian E Zuo: Collision in Singapore Waters - Negligence & Maritime Conventions Act

In 2014, the Arctic Bridge and the Tian E Zuo were involved in related collisions in Singapore waters. The Arctic Bridge sued the owners of the Tian E Zuo, alleging the Tian E Zuo was wholly to blame. The Tian E Zuo counterclaimed, arguing the Arctic Bridge was responsible. The High Court of Singapore, Belinda Ang Saw Ean J, presiding, found both vessels equally liable for the collisions, apportioning responsibility 50/50 under the Maritime Conventions Act. The court found faults on both sides, including the Tian E Zuo dragging anchor and the Arctic Bridge's subsequent maneuvers.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Judgment on the claim and counterclaim accordingly. Responsibility for the collision must be divided equally between both vessels for the related collisions.

1.3 Case Type

Admiralty

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Collision case between Arctic Bridge and Tian E Zuo in Singapore. Court apportions liability 50/50 under Maritime Conventions Act.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
MT “ARCTIC BRIDGE” TANKSCHIEFFAHRTSGESELLSCHAFT mbH & CO KGPlaintiffCorporationPartialPartial
ARCTIC BRIDGE SHIPPING LIMITEDPlaintiffCorporationPartialPartial
THE OWNERS AND/OR THE DEMISE CHARTERERS OF AND/OR OTHER PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE SHIP OR VESSEL “TIAN E ZUO”DefendantOtherPartialPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Wong Teck MingAsiaLegal LLC
Chew Sui Gek MagdaleneAsiaLegal LLC
Lee Soo Pin VictoriaAsiaLegal LLC
Loo Dip SengAng & Partners
Tan Siew ChiAng & Partners

4. Facts

  1. Arctic Bridge and Tian E Zuo involved in related collisions in Western Petroleum Anchorage B.
  2. Tian E Zuo dragged anchor during a squall, colliding with Marine Liberty and DL Navig8.
  3. Arctic Bridge, after noticing the drifting vessels, prepared to move from her anchored position.
  4. Arctic Bridge's port anchor entangled with Tian E Zuo's anchor chain.
  5. Arctic Bridge towed Tian E Zuo for approximately 20 minutes.
  6. Tian E Zuo collided with Stena Provence due to the involuntary towage.
  7. Arctic Bridge continued forward, causing a second collision between Tian E Zuo and Stena Provence.

5. Formal Citations

  1. The “Tian E Zuo”, Admiralty in Rem No 113 of 2014, [2018] SGHC 93

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Related collisions occurred
Admiralty action in Rem against the ship or vessel “TIAN E ZUO”
Trial began
Trial concluded
Judgment reserved
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Negligence
    • Outcome: Both vessels found negligent and equally liable for the collision.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to keep proper lookout
      • Breach of COLREGS
      • Poor seamanship
      • Inadequate bridge management
  2. Causation
    • Outcome: Court determined that multiple faults contributed to the collision, rejecting the 'but for' test as the sole determinant of causation.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Factual causation
      • Legal causation
      • Novus actus interveniens
      • Chain of causation
  3. Apportionment of Liability
    • Outcome: Liability apportioned equally (50/50) between the two vessels.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Relative blameworthiness
      • Causative potency
  4. Breach of COLREGS
    • Outcome: Both vessels found to have breached multiple COLREGS rules.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Rule 5 (Lookout)
      • Rule 7 (Risk of Collision)
      • Rule 8 (Action to Avoid Collision)

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Indemnification

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence
  • Breach of Maritime Regulations

10. Practice Areas

  • Admiralty Litigation
  • Shipping Litigation
  • Collision Claims

11. Industries

  • Shipping

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
The “Dream Star”High CourtYes[2018] 4 SLR 473SingaporeCited regarding the use of VDR data and expert testimony, noting that VDR data shows what might have happened, not what did happen.
Tan Mui Teck v Public ProsecutorCourt of AppealYes[2003] 3 SLR(R) 139SingaporeCited regarding the weight assigned to expert opinions based on their familiarity with a subject.
V Nithia (co-administratrix of the estate of Ponnusamy Sivapakiam, deceased) v Buthmanaban s/o VaithilingamHigh CourtYes[2015] 5 SLR 1422SingaporeCited regarding the principle that the words of a legal defense need not be specifically pleaded, as long as the material facts are disclosed.
Sunny Metal & Engineering Pte Ltd v Ng Khim Ming EricCourt of AppealYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 782SingaporeCited for the explanation of the interplay between factual and legal causation in determining liability.
The “Viper”UnknownYes[1926] 24 Ll L Rep 10United KingdomCited for the principle that a vessel underway is bound to keep clear of a vessel at anchor.
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”Hong Kong Court of First InstanceYes[2017] HKCFI 981Hong KongCited for the duty to avoid, so far as possible, a close quarters situation.
The “Navios Enterprise” and “Puritan”UnknownYes[1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 16United KingdomCited for the interpretation and application of Rule 2 of the COLREGS, emphasizing that the rules apply in all circumstances, including special circumstances.
The “Palembang”UnknownYes[1929] 34 Ll L Rep 5United KingdomCited for the definition of a vessel at anchor as one that is actually held by and under the control of her anchor.
The “Pearl”UnknownYes[2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 188United KingdomCited for the principle that a vessel is not considered at anchor while dragging anchor in a squall.
The “Eurasian Dream”UnknownYes[2002] Lloyd’s Rep 719United KingdomCited to distinguish between incompetence and negligence of a crew.
The Bywell CastleUnknownYes(1879) 4 PD 219United KingdomCited for the principle of 'agony of the moment,' excusing errors in judgment made in sudden emergencies caused by another vessel's negligence.
Thorben Langvad Linneberg v Leong Mei KuenCourt of AppealYes[2013] 1 SLR 207SingaporeAcknowledged The Bywell Castle as the likely origin of the doctrine of agony of the moment.
The “Global Mariner” and “Atlantic Crusader”UnknownYes[2005] Lloyd’s Rep 699United KingdomCited for the emphasis on the need for those on board a vessel to make a proper appreciation of her situation, avoiding assumptions and deeming a risk of collision to exist where there is doubt.
Koon Seng Construction Pte Ltd v Chenab Contractor Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2008] 1 SLR(R) 375SingaporeCited for the principle that the court is not bound to confine its decision to the version advanced by the parties if the evidence shows otherwise.
The “Samco Europe” and “MSC Prestige”UnknownYes[2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 579United KingdomCited for the principle that apportionment of liability for a collision depends on an assessment of the blameworthiness and causative potency of both vessels.
The “Nordlake” and the “Seaeagle”UnknownYes[2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 656United KingdomCited for the principles of assessing relative blameworthiness and causative potency in apportioning liability for a collision.
The “Foreric”UnknownYes[1926] 24 Ll L Rep 329United KingdomAddressed the contention that the Foreric should have displayed signals to alert others that they were being towed.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Maritime Conventions Act 1911Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Collision
  • Anchor Dragging
  • Involuntary Towage
  • COLREGS
  • Seamanship
  • Lookout
  • Causation
  • Apportionment of Liability
  • Maritime Conventions Act
  • Vessel Underway
  • Vessel at Anchor

15.2 Keywords

  • collision
  • admiralty
  • shipping
  • negligence
  • maritime law
  • Singapore
  • Maritime Conventions Act
  • COLREGS
  • apportionment of liability

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Admiralty and Maritime Law90
Collision Claims90
Shipping Law90
Good seamanship70
Causation60
Negligence50
Contract Law30
Civil Procedure20
Evidence20

16. Subjects

  • Admiralty
  • Shipping
  • Maritime Law
  • Collision