Hansa Safety Services GmbH v The Owner of the Vessel, the “King Darwin”: Striking Out Notice of Discontinuance for Wrongful Arrest Claim
In Hansa Safety Services GmbH v The Owner of the Vessel, the “King Darwin”, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the striking out of a Notice of Discontinuance (NOD). The intervener, Hendrik Gittermann, sought to strike out the NOD to pursue a claim for wrongful arrest. The court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, upholding the decision to strike out the NOD, but imposed terms to balance the parties' positions, allowing the plaintiff to withdraw its claim while preventing a fresh action on the same claim. The court allowed the intervener to claim damages for wrongful arrest within the action.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Senior Assistant Registrar’s order to strike out the Notice of Discontinuance upheld with terms.
1.3 Case Type
Admiralty
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court considered striking out a notice of discontinuance to prevent injustice in a wrongful arrest claim. The court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hansa Safety Services GmbH | Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| The Owner of the Vessel, the “King Darwin” | Defendant | Other | Successful Resistance of Appeal | Won | |
| Hendrik Gittermann | Intervener | Individual | Application to Strike Out NOD Granted | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Vincent Hoong | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The Plaintiff commenced an action against the Defendant for EUR 5,864.00 for unpaid services.
- The Plaintiff arrested the Defendant's vessel, the “King Darwin”.
- The vessel was released after the Defendant furnished a Letter of Undertaking.
- The Intervener, as Insolvency Administrator of the Defendant, sought to set aside the warrant of arrest and claim damages for wrongful arrest.
- The Plaintiff served a Notice of Discontinuance.
- The Intervener applied to strike out the Notice of Discontinuance.
5. Formal Citations
- The “King Darwin”, Admiralty in Rem No 126 of 2018 (Registrar’s Appeal No 145 of 2019), [2019] SGHC 177
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff commenced the Action against the Defendant | |
| Plaintiff arrested the vessel | |
| Vessel released after Defendant furnished a Letter of Undertaking | |
| Intervener granted leave to intervene in the Action | |
| Intervener filed Summons No 365 of 2019 to set aside the warrant of arrest and claim damages for wrongful arrest | |
| Plaintiff filed the Notice of Discontinuance | |
| Plaintiff served the Notice of Discontinuance | |
| Intervener applied to strike out the Notice of Discontinuance | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Striking Out Notice of Discontinuance
- Outcome: The court upheld the decision to strike out the Notice of Discontinuance, with terms.
- Category: Procedural
- Wrongful Arrest
- Outcome: The court allowed the Intervener to claim damages for wrongful arrest within the Action.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Payment of EUR 5,864.00
- Setting aside the warrant of arrest
- Damages for wrongful arrest
9. Cause of Actions
- Claim for unpaid services
- Wrongful Arrest
10. Practice Areas
- Admiralty
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Shipping
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Castanho v Brown & Root (UK) Ltd and another | N/A | Yes | [1981] AC 557 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that a Notice of Discontinuance may be set aside if it amounts to injustice or an abuse of process. |
| Roberto Building Material Pte Ltd and others v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd and another | N/A | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR(R) 353 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court's inherent powers should only be exercised in special circumstances. |
| Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Law Society of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 821 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the exercise of inherent jurisdiction should not be circumscribed by rigid criteria and that an essential touchstone is that of 'need'. |
| Fakih Brothers v A P Moller (Copenhagen) Ltd and others | N/A | Yes | [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 103 | N/A | Cited as an example of when a court would strike out a Notice of Discontinuance. |
| Ernst & Young (a firm) v Butte Mining Plc | N/A | Yes | [1996] 1 WLR 1605 | United Kingdom | Cited as an example of when a court would strike out a Notice of Discontinuance. |
| Covell Matthews & Partners v French Wools Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1977] 1 WLR 876 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the court may allow discontinuance with terms to preserve advantages gained in litigation. |
| UMCI Ltd v Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd and others | N/A | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 95 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a sensible approach must be taken when considering the question of necessity in the context of the court's inherent jurisdiction. |
| The “Xin Chang Shu” | N/A | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 1096 | Singapore | Cited for the methods of bringing a claim for wrongful arrest. |
| Fal Energy Company Limited v Owners of the Ship or Vessel “Kiku Pacific” | High Court | Yes | [1998] SGHC 370 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where the shipowner provided security and defended the merits of the claim at trial and sought damages for wrongful arrest as a counterclaim. |
| The “Trade Resolve” | N/A | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR(R) 107 | Singapore | Cited for the suggestion that there could be a fourth way to pursue a claim for damages for wrongful arrest at the interlocutory stage without first applying to strike out the writ or even set aside the warrant of arrest. |
| The Walter D Wallet | N/A | Yes | [1893] P 202 | N/A | Cited as a case where the court allowed the plaintiff's claim for the wrongful arrest of a ship, and awarded nominal damages to the plaintiff independently of any in rem action by the arresting party. |
| Best Soar Ltd v Praxis Energy Agents Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2018] 3 SLR 423 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the owner of a vessel commenced an action in Singapore against the defendant seeking, among others, a declaration that the defendant had wrongfully arrested its vessel in Lebanon and for damages to be assessed. |
| Congentra AG v Sixteen Thirteen Marine SA (The “Nicholas M”) | N/A | Yes | [2009] 1 All ER (Comm) 479 | United Kingdom | Cited for the recognition that there exists the tort of wrongful arrest under English law. |
| The Evangelismos | N/A | Yes | (1858) 12 Moo PC 352 | N/A | Cited for the test to be applied in a claim for wrongful arrest pursued under the Action. |
| The “Vasiliy Golovnin” | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 994 | Singapore | Cited for the test to be applied in a claim for wrongful arrest pursued under the Action. |
| The “Kiku Pacific” | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR(R) 91 | Singapore | Cited for the test to be proved by the owners in a claim for wrongful arrest. |
| The “Ohm Mariana” ex “Peony” | N/A | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 556 | Singapore | Discusses the importation of 'without reasonable or probable cause' into the action for wrongful arrest. |
| Hanhyo Sdn Bhd v Marplan Sdn Bhd & Ors | N/A | Yes | [1992] 1 MLJ 51 | N/A | Cited as a case whereby the plaintiff was entitled to discontinue its action as the loss of advantages on the defendant’s part that flowed from the discontinuance could be counteracted with terms. |
| Rohde & Liesenfeld Pte Ltd v Jorg Geselle and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 335 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that costs are not the only consideration and do not truly compensate for the loss of time and effort directed towards fighting the proceedings. |
| Setiadi Hendrawan v OCBC Securities Pte Ltd and others | N/A | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR(R) 296 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the court may allow the discontinuance of part of the action (eg, withdrawal of the claim) in lieu of discontinuing the action as a whole. |
| Newland Enterprise Pte Ltd v “Santa Arona” (Owners of) | N/A | Yes | [1988] 2 MLJ 246 | N/A | Cited as a case of little assistance to the present matter. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Notice of Discontinuance
- Wrongful Arrest
- Inherent Powers
- In Rem Action
- Letter of Undertaking
- Insolvency Administrator
15.2 Keywords
- Admiralty
- Shipping
- Wrongful Arrest
- Notice of Discontinuance
- Singapore
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Inherent Power of the Court | 90 |
| Admiralty and Maritime Law | 80 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Wrongful arrest | 70 |
| Civil Procedure | 70 |
| Litigation | 60 |
| Jurisdiction | 40 |
| Administrative Law | 25 |
| Contract Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Admiralty
- Civil Procedure
- Shipping Law