Manas Kumar Ghosh v MSI Ship Management: Striking Out & Res Judicata in Injury Claim

In Manas Kumar Ghosh v MSI Ship Management Pte Ltd and others, the High Court of Singapore heard appeals against the Assistant Registrar's decision to strike out the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff, Manas Kumar Ghosh, sued MSI Ship Management Pte Ltd, Wilhelmsen Ship Management Singapore Pte Ltd, and Cantonment Close Pte Ltd for injuries sustained while working on a vessel. The court, presided over by Aedit Abdullah J, dismissed the appeals, finding that the defendants were agents covered by a prior settlement agreement and that the extended doctrine of res judicata applied. The court upheld the striking out of the action.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeals Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court dismissed appeals, striking out an injury claim based on a settlement agreement and res judicata, finding the defendants were agents.

1.7 Decision Date

26 August 2020

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Manas Kumar Ghosh	Plaintiff, Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Goh Kok Leong of Ang & Partners Daniel Tan An Ye of Ang & Partners
MSI Ship Management Pte Ltd	Defendant, Respondent	Corporation	Claim Dismissed	Won	Sze Kian Chuan of Joseph Tan Jude Benny LLP Tan Shi Yun of Joseph Tan Jude Benny LLP Jolene of Joseph Tan Jude Benny LLP Low Hui Chen Nicola of Joseph Tan Jude Benny LLP
Wilhelmsen Ship Management Singapore Pte Ltd	Defendant, Respondent	Corporation	Claim Dismissed	Won	Sze Kian Chuan of Joseph Tan Jude Benny LLP Tan Shi Yun of Joseph Tan Jude Benny LLP Jolene of Joseph Tan Jude Benny LLP Low Hui Chen Nicola of Joseph Tan Jude Benny LLP
Cantonment Close Pte Ltd	Defendant, Respondent	Corporation	Claim Dismissed	Won	Sze Kian Chuan of Joseph Tan Jude Benny LLP Tan Shi Yun of Joseph Tan Jude Benny LLP Jolene of Joseph Tan Jude Benny LLP Low Hui Chen Nicola of Joseph Tan Jude Benny LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Aedit Abdullah	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Goh Kok Leong	Ang & Partners
Daniel Tan An Ye	Ang & Partners
Sze Kian Chuan	Joseph Tan Jude Benny LLP
Tan Shi Yun	Joseph Tan Jude Benny LLP
Jolene	Joseph Tan Jude Benny LLP
Low Hui Chen Nicola	Joseph Tan Jude Benny LLP

4. Facts

The plaintiff was injured while working as a Third Engineer on the X-Press Makalu.
The plaintiff's hands were amputated following the accident.
The plaintiff previously commenced a suit against the owner of the vessel, which was settled.
The plaintiff then commenced the present suit against the ship managers of the vessel.
The ship management agreements between the defendants incorporated the SHIPMAN 2009 standard terms.
The settlement agreement covered claims against the third defendant and its agents.

5. Formal Citations

Manas Kumar Ghosh v MSI Ship Management Pte Ltd and others, Suit No 670 of 2018 (Registrar’s Appeals Nos 273 and 274 of 2019), [2020] SGHC 179

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2015-07-02	Plaintiff suffered injuries while working on board the X-Press Makalu.
2016-01-01	Plaintiff commenced HC/ADM 257/2016 against the third defendant.
2018-01-24	Settlement agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the third defendant.
2018-02-07	Plaintiff discontinued the 2016 suit.
2018-07-02	Plaintiff commenced the present suit against the first and second defendants.
2019-02-19	Third defendant was granted leave to intervene as a defendant.
2019-03-12	Defendants filed applications for determination of a question of construction and striking out the statement of claim.
2019-08-27	AR found for the defendants on both applications.
2020-01-09	High Court heard the appeals.
2020-02-26	High Court heard the appeals.
2020-03-04	High Court heard the appeals.
2020-08-27	High Court dismissed the appeals.

7. Legal Issues

Whether the first and second defendants are ‘agents’ as specified under Clauses 1.6 and 2.1 of the Settlement Agreement
- Outcome: The court determined that the first and second defendants were agents of the third defendant within the ambit of the settlement agreement.
- Category: Substantive
Whether the plaintiff's claim should be struck out under O 18 r 19 of the ROC
- Outcome: The court struck out the plaintiff's claim for want of a reasonable cause of action and for abuse of process.
- Category: Procedural
Whether the extended doctrine of res judicata applies to bar the present claim
- Outcome: The court found that the extended doctrine of res judicata operated to render the plaintiff's current suit an abuse of process.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Negligence

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Shipping Litigation

11. Industries

Maritime

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Payna Chettiar v Maimoon bte Ismail and others	High Court	Yes	[1997] 1 SLR(R) 738	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a determination may be made if it would save time and costs, even if it does not dispose of the entire dispute.
Beam Technology (Mfg) Pte Ltd v Standard Chartered Bank	High Court	Yes	[2003] 1 SLR 597	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a determination may be made if it would save time and costs, even if it does not dispose of the entire dispute.
Ong & Co Pte Ltd v Ngu Tieng Ung	High Court	Yes	[1999] 4 SLR 379	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a determination may be made if it would save time and costs, even if it does not dispose of the entire dispute.
TMT Asia Ltd v BHP Billiton Marketing AG (Singapore Branch) and another	High Court	Yes	[2015] 2 SLR 540	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the overriding consideration in deciding when the discretion will be exercised is whether summary determination on the facts of the case would fulfil the underlying purpose of O 14 r 12 of the ROC, to save time and costs for the parties.
ANB v ANF	High Court	Yes	[2011] 2 SLR 1	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the overriding consideration in deciding when the discretion will be exercised is whether summary determination on the facts of the case would fulfil the underlying purpose of O 14 r 12 of the ROC, to save time and costs for the parties.
The “Chem Orchid” and other appeals and another matter	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 2 SLR 50	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the process under O 14 r 12 could only be invoked if there were no factual disputes relating to the point of law in question.
Olivine Capital Pte Ltd and another v Chia Chin Yan and another matter	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 2 SLR 1371	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a party is bound by his pleadings in O 14 proceedings under the ROC.
Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd v B-Gold Interior Design & Construction Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2008] 3 SLR(R) 1029	Singapore	Cited regarding the scope for material evidence from negotiations to contour contractual interpretation.
Xia Zhengyan v Geng Changqing	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 3 SLR 732	Singapore	Cited as expressly leaving open the question of whether or not there should be a principle that evidence of prior negotiations ought to be generally admissible in Singapore.
Gabriel Peter & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin and others	High Court	Yes	[1997] 3 SLR(R) 649	Singapore	Cited for the principle that it will typically only be in “plain and obvious” cases that the power of striking out should be invoked.
Tan Eng Khiam v Ultra Realty Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1991] 1 SLR(R) 844	Singapore	Cited for the principle to afford a litigant the right to institute a bona fide claim before the courts and to prosecute it in the usual way unless the case is wholly and clearly unarguable.
The “Bunga Melati 5”	High Court	Yes	[2012] 4 SLR 546	Singapore	Cited for the principle that each limb of O 18 r 19(1) of the ROC provides a separate and distinct basis for the Court’s exercise of its power to strike out pleadings.
Chua Choon Lim Robert v MN Swami and others	High Court	Yes	[2000] 2 SLR(R) 589	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an action brought in breach of an undertaking to not commence litigation is liable to be struck out under O 18 r 19 of the ROC as being vexatious and an abuse of the process of Court.
Venkatraman Kalyanaraman v Nithya Kalyani and others	High Court	Yes	[2016] 4 SLR 1365	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the extended doctrine of res judicata operated to bar the reopening of a settlement or a consent order.
Jeffrey Charles Stuart v Stephen Goldberg and Carl Linde and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] EWCA Civ 2	England and Wales	Cited regarding the principle that it must be potentially relevant that a Claimant knows about another claim, is contemplating asserting it against the same Defendant, but says nothing about it.
Antariksa Logistics Pte Ltd and others v Nurdian Cuaca and others	High Court	Yes	[2018] 3 SLR 117	Singapore	Cited regarding the principle that it must be potentially relevant that a Claimant knows about another claim, is contemplating asserting it against the same Defendant, but says nothing about it.
Henderson v Henderson	High Court of Chancery	Yes	[1843] 3 Hare 100	England and Wales	Cited as the seminal decision for the extended doctrine of res judicata.
Lim Geok Lin Andy v Yap Jin Meng Bryan and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 760	Singapore	Cited regarding the prominence of the rule in Henderson.
Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited v Zodiac Seats UK Limited (formerly known as Contour Aerospace Limited)	United Kingdom Supreme Court	Yes	[2013] UKSC 46	United Kingdom	Cited regarding the prominence of the rule in Henderson.
Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-General	High Court	Yes	[2006] 2 SLR(R) 565	Singapore	Cited for the principle that in the context of the extended doctrine of res judicata, there is no need for strict identity of parties for the doctrine to apply, at least in respect of litigation.
Then Khek Koon and another v Arjun Permanand Samtani and another and other suits	High Court	Yes	[2014] 1 SLR 245	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the extended doctrine of res judicata does not require that the parties to both suits be the same.
Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck and others	High Court	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR(R) 453	Singapore	Cited regarding the task of the court to draw the balance between the competing claims of one party to put his case before the court and of the other not to be unjustly hounded given the earlier history of the matter.
Bradford & Bingley Building Society v Seddon	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 1 WLR 1482	England and Wales	Cited regarding the task of the court to draw the balance between the competing claims of one party to put his case before the court and of the other not to be unjustly hounded given the earlier history of the matter.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 14 r 12 of the Rules of Court
O 18 r 19 of the Rules of Court
O 18 r 19(1)(a) of the Rules of Court
O 18 r 19(1)(b) of the Rules of Court
O 18 r 19(1)(c) of the Rules of Court
O 18 r 19(1)(d) of the Rules of Court
O 92 r 4 of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Settlement Agreement
Ship Management Agreement
SHIPMAN 2009
Agency
Independent Contractor
Res Judicata
Striking Out
ISM Code
ISPS Code

15.2 Keywords

settlement agreement
res judicata
striking out
agency
ship management

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Civil Procedure	75
Civil Practice	75
Extended doctrine of res judicata	70
Res Judicata	70
Determination of question of law or the construction of a document	65
Contract Law	50
Arbitration	25
Shipping	20

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Shipping Law
Contract Law
Agency Law