Summer Star Maritime SA v Owner of NUR ALLYA: Extension of Writ Validity & Limitation in Admiralty Collision Claim

In Summer Star Maritime SA v Owner and/or Demise Charterer of the vessel “NUR ALLYA” & 26 Ors and GSM Puteri Maritime SA v Owner and/or Demise Charterer of the vessel “NUR ALLYA” & 26 Ors, the Singapore High Court addressed the defendant's application to set aside the ex parte orders that extended the validity of the writs. The case arose from a collision between the vessel “Nur Allya” and the vessels “GS Spring” and “Atika”. The court dismissed the defendant's applications to set aside the extension orders, but varied the orders to extend the validity of the writs for six months.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Defendant's applications to set aside the Extension Orders are dismissed. The Extension Orders are varied to provide that the validity of the Writs be extended for a period of six months from 3 January 2018 up to and including 2 July 2018.

1.3 Case Type

Admiralty

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court judgment on extending writ validity in an admiralty collision claim. The court declined to set aside the extension order.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Summer Star Maritime SAPlaintiffCorporationApplication dismissedLostK Muralitherapany, Ng Lip Kai
GSM Puteri Maritime SAPlaintiffCorporationApplication dismissedLostK Muralitherapany, Ng Lip Kai
Owner and/or Demise Charterer of the vessel “NUR ALLYA” & 26 OrsDefendantOtherApplication to set aside Extension Orders dismissedWonRamachandran Doraisamy Raghunath, Rafizah Gaffoor

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Navin AnandAssistant RegistrarYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
K MuralitherapanyJoseph Tan Jude Benny LLP
Ng Lip KaiJoseph Tan Jude Benny LLP
Ramachandran Doraisamy RaghunathPeter Doraisamy LLC
Rafizah GaffoorPeter Doraisamy LLC

4. Facts

  1. The Plaintiff in ADM 3 is the owner of the vessel “GS Spring”.
  2. The Plaintiff in ADM 4 is the owner of the vessel “Atika”.
  3. The Defendant in ADM 3 and ADM 4 is the owner of the vessel “Nur Allya”.
  4. On 4 January 2015, the “Nur Allya” was involved in a double collision with the “GS Spring” and the “Atika”.
  5. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Collisions were caused by the Defendant’s negligence.
  6. The Plaintiffs have allegedly incurred costs for repair works and surveys done on the Vessels.
  7. The parties do not dispute that claims arising out of the Collisions are subject to the two year limitation period provided for under the MCA.
  8. On 3 January 2017, the Plaintiffs issued in rem writs in ADM 3 and ADM 4 against the owner of the “Nur Allya”.

5. Formal Citations

  1. The “Nur Allya”, Admiralty in Rem No 3 of 2017 (Summons No 2232 of 2018) & Admiralty in Rem No 4 of 2017 (Summons No 2234 of 2018), [2018] SGHCR 12

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Nur Allya involved in a double collision with GS Spring and Atika
Plaintiffs intimated a claim against the Defendant through a letter of demand
Plaintiffs issued in rem writs in ADM 3 and ADM 4 against the owner of the Nur Allya
Defendant's Protection & Indemnity Club emailed Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs proposed a call to discuss settlement and the provision of security
Defendant agreed to have a telephone discussion with Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs and Defendant had a telephone discussion
Plaintiffs provided an itemised breakdown of claims and security demanded
Defendant stated they would consider the claim documents and security request
Plaintiffs and Defendant negotiated the wording of the security
Plaintiffs and Defendant discussed the wording of the security
Defendant's Protection & Indemnity Club issued two letters of undertaking
Plaintiffs emailed Defendant to inquire about the substantive claim
Plaintiffs sent an email reminder
Plaintiffs sent an email reminder
Plaintiffs threatened to call on the undertaking to appoint a Singapore law firm
Defendant requested time to provide a substantive response
Writs expired
Deadline for Defendant's substantive response
Plaintiffs set a new deadline for Defendant's substantive response
Defendant raised the issue of time bar and asked for copies of the Writs
Plaintiffs' solicitors realized that the Writs were no longer valid
Plaintiffs filed ex parte applications to extend the validity of the Writs
Defendant entered appearance gratis and applied to set aside the Extension Orders
Judgment reserved
Judgment delivered

7. Legal Issues

  1. Extension of Validity of Writ
    • Outcome: The court found that there was good reason for extension and a satisfactory explanation for the delay, and that the balance of hardship favored the plaintiffs. The court dismissed the defendant's applications to set aside the extension orders, but varied the orders to extend the validity of the writs for six months.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Good reason for extension
      • Satisfactory explanation for delay
      • Balance of hardship
  2. Limitation of Actions
    • Outcome: The court considered the defendant's right to limitation but found that it would be unjust and unfair to allow the defendant to rely on a limitation defence, given the defendant's conduct during negotiations.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Extension of Validity of Writ
  2. Setting aside of ex parte orders

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Admiralty
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Maritime

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
The “Lircay”High CourtYes[1997] 1 SLR(R) 699SingaporeCited for the principles governing the renewal of writs, particularly in admiralty cases, and the importance of serving the writ promptly.
The “Antares V”High CourtYes[2002] 2 SLR(R) 616SingaporeCited for the principle that it is incumbent on a plaintiff to serve the writ promptly.
The “Ching Ho”High CourtYes[2001] 3 SLR(R) 84SingaporeCited for the principle that hardship to the plaintiff does not, without more, constitute good reason for an extension to be granted.
Waddon v Whitecroft-Scovill LtdUnknownYes[1988] 1 All ER 996England and WalesCited for the principle that the issue of good reason for extension is inextricably bound with whether the plaintiff had good reason(s) for failing to serve the writ during the original period of validity.
The “Owenbawn”UnknownYes[1973] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 56UnknownCited for the principle that an agreement to defer service of the writ or conduct by the defendant leading the plaintiff to suppose it would be all right to defer service of the writ can be a good reason for extension.
Kun Kay Hong v Tan Teo HuatCourt of AppealYes[1983-1984] SLR(R) 762SingaporeCited for the principle that a request by the defendant's solicitor to defer service pending completion of investigations can be a good reason for extension.
The “Finnrose”UnknownYes[1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 559UnknownCited for the principle that sporadic attempts at a settlement are no excuse for letting a matter go to sleep.
The “Pearl of Jebel Ali”UnknownYes[2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 484UnknownCited for the policy underlying statutes of limitation, which is to ensure that claims are pursued with reasonable diligence.
WEA Records Ltd v Visions Channel 4 LtdUnknownYes[1983] 1 WLR 721England and WalesCited for the court’s power to vary ex parte orders after the inter partes hearing.
The “Ursus”High CourtYes[2015] SGHCR 7SingaporeCited regarding the deemed service of writs.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Maritime Conventions Act 1911Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Extension of writ validity
  • Limitation period
  • Settlement negotiations
  • Letter of undertaking
  • Admiralty in rem
  • Collision
  • Good reason
  • Balance of hardship

15.2 Keywords

  • Admiralty
  • Collision
  • Writ
  • Extension
  • Limitation
  • Singapore
  • Maritime

16. Subjects

  • Admiralty
  • Civil Procedure
  • Shipping Law

17. Areas of Law

  • Admiralty Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Maritime Law
  • Limitation of Actions