Mount Apo v Hanjin Ras Laffan: Collision in Singapore Strait, Traffic Separation Scheme, COLREGS, Apportionment of Liability

In [2019] SGHC 57, the High Court of Singapore addressed a collision in the Singapore Strait between the Mount Apo, owned by Cisslow Shipping Inc., and the Hanjin Ras Laffan, owned by KSH International S.A. and demise chartered by H-Line Shipping Co. Ltd. The court consolidated Admiralty in rem No 246 of 2015 and Admiralty in rem No 195 of 2015, designating ADM 246 as the lead action. The primary legal issue concerned violations of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS), particularly Rule 10 regarding Traffic Separation Schemes (TSS) and Rules 15 and 17 concerning crossing situations. The court apportioned liability for the collision, finding Mount Apo 60% responsible and Hanjin Ras Laffan 40% responsible.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Responsibility for the collision is apportioned 60:40 in favor of Hanjin Ras Laffan.

1.3 Case Type

Admiralty

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Collision between Mount Apo and Hanjin Ras Laffan in Singapore Strait. Liability apportioned 60:40 due to COLREGS violations and unsafe crossing.

1.7 Decision Date

7 March 2019

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Owner of the ship or vessel “MOUNT APO”	Plaintiff	Corporation	Claim apportioned	Partial	Chan Leng Sun of Wong & Leow LLC Mohamed Goush s/o Marikan of Goush Marikan Law Practice Muhammad Muzhaffar bin Omar of Wong & Leow LLC Syed Isa bin Mohamed Alhabshee of Goush Marikan Law Practice
Owner and/or Demise Charterer of the ship or vessel “HANJIN RAS LAFFAN”	Defendant, Plaintiff	Corporation	Counterclaim apportioned	Partial	Dedi Affandi bin Ahmad of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Tay Jia En of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Leong Kah Wah of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Cisslow Shipping Inc.	Plaintiff	Corporation
KSH International S.A.	Plaintiff	Corporation
H-Line Shipping Co. Ltd.	Plaintiff	Corporation

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Pang Khang Chau	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Chan Leng Sun	Wong & Leow LLC
Mohamed Goush s/o Marikan	Goush Marikan Law Practice
Muhammad Muzhaffar bin Omar	Wong & Leow LLC
Syed Isa bin Mohamed Alhabshee	Goush Marikan Law Practice
Dedi Affandi bin Ahmad	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Tay Jia En	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Leong Kah Wah	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP

4. Facts

On 8 August 2015, the Mount Apo collided with the Hanjin Ras Laffan in the Singapore Strait.
The collision occurred within the westbound lane of the Traffic Separation Scheme.
Mount Apo was attempting to cross the westbound lane to reach the eastbound lane.
Hanjin Ras Laffan was transiting the Singapore Strait from east to west.
Mount Apo crossed the TSS at a shallow angle of 32 degrees.
Hanjin Ras Laffan initiated a VHF conversation suggesting a green-to-green passing.
Mount Apo replied that she had stopped engine to let Hanjin Ras Laffan pass her bow.

5. Formal Citations

The “Mount Apo” and the “Hanjin Ras Laffan”, , [2019] SGHC 57
Owner of the ship or vessel “MOUNT APO”, , Admiralty in Rem No 246 of 2015
Owner and/or Demise Charterer of the ship or vessel “HANJIN RAS LAFFAN”, , Admiralty in Rem No 195 of 2015
Zweite, , CA 88/2012 – ORC 1693/2013

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1997-10-27	Bareboat Charter Hire Purchase Agreement signed between KSH and Hanjin Shipping in respect of Hanjin Ras Laffan
2010-08-27	Loan agreement signed between KSH and its lenders
2010-09-07	Amending and Restating Agreement signed between KSH and Hanjin Shipping
2013-08-27	Loan agreement signed between KSH and its lenders
2013-09-09	Amending and Restating Agreement signed between KSH and Hanjin Shipping
2014-06-26	Transfer agreement signed transferring COA between KOGAS and Hanjin Shipping to H-Line
2014-06-30	Novation and Amendment Agreement signed among KSH, Hanjin Shipping and H-Line
2015-01-15	CSR issued by the Panama ship registry
2015-08-08	Collision between Mount Apo and Hanjin Ras Laffan
2016-06-02	ADM 246 and ADM 195 were consolidated as one action by court order
2017-03-10	CSR issued
2018-02-20	Captain Rajesh Sardarsingh Chauhan’s affidavit evidence-in-chief filed
2018-02-28	Ms Yoo Jin Joo’s 1st AEIC filed
2018-03-27	Captain Bruce Gordon Ewen’s 1st AEIC filed
2018-04-09	Captain John Nicholas Duncan Simpson’s 1st AEIC filed
2018-04-20	Ms Joo’s 2nd AEIC filed
2018-04-30	Plaintiff’s Opening Statement
2018-05-08	Trial began
2018-05-08	NE, 8 October 2018, at 31:16–20, and 36:14–19
2018-05-09	NE, 9 May 2018, at 32:4
2018-05-10	NE, 10 May 2018, at 15:17–23
2018-08-08	Mr William John Ellison’s Supplementary AEIC filed
2018-08-08	NE, 8 October 2018, at 28:11–25; 76:20–25
2018-08-14	NE, 14 August 2018, at 7:27–23:29
2018-08-15	NE, 15 August 2018 at 15:1–4; 17:17–25
2018-08-25	Defendant’s Closing Submissions
2018-08-25	Plaintiff’s Closing Submissions
2018-09-25	Defendant’s Closing Submissions
2018-09-25	Plaintiff’s Closing Submissions
2018-10-08	NE, 8 October 2018, at 30:1–10; 50:25
2019-03-08	Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

Breach of COLREGS Rule 10(c)
- Outcome: The court found that Mt Apo was at fault for crossing the TSS at a shallow angle of 32 degrees, in breach of Rule 10(c).
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Failure to cross TSS at right angles
  - Unsafe crossing of traffic lanes
Breach of COLREGS Rules 15 and 17
- Outcome: The court found that Mt Apo and Hanjin Ras Laffan were in a crossing situation from 9:54 am, when Mt Apo crossed the northern boundary of the westbound lane.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Failure to give way in crossing situation
  - Failure to maintain course and speed
Misuse of VHF Communication
- Outcome: The court found that Hanjin Ras Laffan's initiation of the 9:55 Conversation was a misuse of VHF because she used the conversation to arrange a green-to-green crossing contrary to Rule 15 of the COLREGS.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Arranging passing contrary to COLREGS
  - Misinterpretation of VHF messages
Title to Sue
- Outcome: The court held that H-Line had established, on the balance of probabilities, that it has title to sue as demise charterer of Hanjin Ras Laffan at the time of the collision.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Proof of demise charter
  - Admissibility of evidence
Apportionment of Liability
- Outcome: The court apportioned liability for the collision, finding Mount Apo 60% responsible and Hanjin Ras Laffan 40% responsible.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Causative potency
  - Culpability

8. Remedies Sought

Apportionment of Liability
Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Negligence
Violation of COLREGS

10. Practice Areas

Admiralty
Shipping
Collision
Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Shipping

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
NTUC Foodfare Co-operative Ltd v SIA Engineering Co Ltd and anor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] 2 SLR 588	Singapore	Cited to question whether H-Line needed to show it was the demise charterer in order to have title to sue.
Jet Holding Ltd and others v Cooper Cameron (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another	High Court	Yes	[2005] 4 SLR(R) 417	Singapore	Cited to illustrate that it is possible to prove title to sue without admitting documents in the nature of the Bareboat Contracts.
Zweite MS “Philippa Schulte” Shipping GmbH & Co KG & another v PSA Corp Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2012] SGHC 135	Singapore	Cited to illustrate that it is possible to prove title to sue without admitting documents in the nature of the Bareboat Contracts.
The “Nordlake” and The “Seaeagle”	Lloyd’s Rep	Yes	[2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 656	England	Cited with approval in The Dream Star [2018] 4 SLR 473 (at [126]) for guidance on the approach to apportionment of liability.
The Dream Star	High Court	Yes	[2018] 4 SLR 473	Singapore	Cited for useful guidance on the approach to apportionment of liability.
The “Century Dawn” and “Asian Energy”	Lloyd’s Rep	Yes	[1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 138	England	Cited for the holding that Rule 10(c) was designed to ensure that the separation lanes should be left clear for vessels proceeding the correct way along them except to the extent that it is necessary for others to cross them or enter them, and that no attempt should be made to cross either lane in a traffic separation scheme unless it is safe to do so.
The “Century Dawn” and “Asian Energy”	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 125	England	Cited for the holding that the question whether it was safe for a vessel to cross should be answered by reference to the conditions prevailing at the time the decision to cross was made and not the conditions prevailing at the time when the vessel entered the TSS.
The Taunton	Court of Appeal	Yes	(1928) 31 Ll. L. Rep. 119	England	Cited for the limits of a stand-on vessel’s duty to keep her course and speed.
The Topaz and Irapua	Lloyd’s Rep	Yes	[2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 19	England	Cited for the limits of a stand-on vessel’s duty to keep her course and speed.
The “Alcoa Rambler”	Privy Council	Yes	[1949] 1 AC 236	Canada	Cited for the essential conditions to constitute a crossing situation.
Gulf of Suez	P	Yes	[1921] P 318	England	Cited for the meaning of 'to involve risk of collision'.
Ng Keng Yong v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2004] 4 SLR(R) 89	Singapore	Cited for the meaning of 'to involve risk of collision'.
The “Mineral Dampier” and “Hanjin Madras”	Lloyd’s Rep	Yes	[2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 419	England	Cited for the use and misuse of VHF communication by vessels which are passing each other or approaching a close quarters situation.
The “Maloja II”	Lloyd’s Rep	Yes	[1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 48	England	Cited for the use and misuse of VHF communication by vessels which are passing each other or approaching a close quarters situation.
The “Mineral Dampier” and “Hanjin Madras”	Lloyd’s Rep	Yes	[2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 282	England	Cited for the facts of the case.
The Fagernes	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1927] 1 P 311	England	Cited for the court taking judicial notice of the UK government’s statement on the limits of British territorial waters and treating that statement as conclusive.
Trade Resolve	High Court	Yes	[1999] 2 SLR(R) 107	Singapore	Cited for any uncertainty arising from the decision in Trade Resolve [1999] 2 SLR(R) 107 at [32]–[33] has been put to rest by Government Gazette Notification No 1485 – “Singapore Maritime Zones” dated 28 May 2008

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Collisions at Sea) Regulations (Cap 179, Section 208, Rg 10, 1990 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Collisions at Sea) Regulations (Cap 179, Section 208, Rg 15, 1990 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Collisions at Sea) Regulations (Cap 179, Section 208, Rg 17, 1990 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Maritime Conventions Act 1911 (Cap IA3, 2004 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Traffic Separation Scheme
COLREGS
Crossing Situation
VHF Communication
Apportionment of Liability
Demise Charterer
Give-way Vessel
Stand-on Vessel
Safe Speed
Good Seamanship

15.2 Keywords

collision
shipping
admiralty
COLREGS
Singapore Strait
traffic separation scheme
negligence
maritime law

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Admiralty and Maritime Law	90
Collision	90
Shipping Law	90
Evidence	60
Regulations	50
Contract Law	30
Contractual terms	30

16. Subjects

Admiralty
Shipping
Collision
Traffic Separation Scheme
International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea