Hai Jiang v. Singapore Technologies Marine: Anti-Suit Injunction & Arbitration of Crane Upgrade Dispute

In Hai Jiang 1401 Pte. Ltd. v. Singapore Technologies Marine Ltd., the High Court of Singapore granted an anti-suit injunction to Hai Jiang, preventing Singapore Technologies Marine from pursuing legal action in Sharjah, UAE, regarding a crane upgrade agreement. The court found that Singapore was the natural forum for the dispute and that the Sharjah proceedings were vexatious and oppressive. The court compelled the parties to proceed with arbitration in Singapore, as per the arbitration clause in the crane upgrade agreement. The claim arose from a dispute over payments for crane upgrading works performed on the vessel MV “SEVEN CHAMPION”.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Anti-Suit Injunction Granted

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court grants anti-suit injunction, compelling arbitration in a crane upgrade dispute between Hai Jiang and Singapore Technologies Marine.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Hai Jiang 1401 Pte. Ltd.PlaintiffCorporationAnti-Suit Injunction GrantedWon
Singapore Technologies Marine Ltd.DefendantCorporationInjunction Granted Against DefendantLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Quentin LohJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Jonathan TanRajah & Tann LLP
Toh Kian SingRajah & Tann LLP
Wu JunnengRajah & Tann LLP
Vellayappan BalasubramaniyamRajah & Tann LLP
Yap Yin SoonAllen & Gledhill LLP
Dorcas Seah Yi HuiAllen & Gledhill LLP
Vivian AngAllen & Gledhill LLP

4. Facts

  1. Hai Jiang bareboat chartered the Vessel to LCS, who undertook to remove the existing crane and install a new one.
  2. LCS sub-bareboat chartered the Vessel to EMAC, who gave identical undertakings to LCS.
  3. Hai Jiang, LCS, and EMAC entered into a General Assignment, where LCS assigned its rights to Hai Jiang.
  4. The Crane Upgrading Works were carried out by the Defendant in its yard in Singapore pursuant to a Crane Upgrade Agreement.
  5. The CUA provided that any dispute arising out of or in connection with the CUA shall be submitted exclusively to arbitration in Singapore.
  6. Hai Jiang alleged numerous defaults by LCS and terminated the BCP, demanding payment of US$194,499,500.
  7. The Defendant issued an In Rem writ for a claim of $5.8 million, naming only the Demise Charterer of the Vessel as defendant.
  8. The Defendant filed a proof of debt of $4,971,098.65 in the liquidation of LCS.
  9. The Defendant commenced a substantive suit in the Sharjah Court against Hai Jiang and LCS, seeking joint and several liability.
  10. Hai Jiang applied for an anti-suit injunction against the Defendant restraining it from maintaining the arrest of the vessel through the Sharjah Proceedings.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Hai Jiang 1401 Pte. Ltd. v Singapore Technologies Marine Ltd., Originating Summons No 83 of 2018; Summons No 729 of 2018; Summons No 987 of 2018, [2020] SGHC 20

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Bareboat charter party (BCP) signed between Hai Jiang 1401 Pte. Ltd. and Lewek Champion Shipping Pte Ltd (LCS).
LCS took delivery of the Vessel.
Sub-bareboat charter party (SBCP) signed between LCS and EMAS-AMC Pte Ltd (EMAC).
General Assignment (GA) signed between Hai Jiang, LCS, and EMAC.
Crane Upgrade Agreement (CUA) signed between LCS and Singapore Technologies Marine Ltd.
Singapore Technologies Marine re-delivered the Vessel after completing the first phase of crane upgrading works.
Singapore Technologies Marine issued an In Rem writ (HC/ADM 27/2017) against “Demise Charterer of the Vessel”.
Hai Jiang terminated the BCP and demanded payment of US$194,499,500 from LCS.
Hai Jiang applied to wind up LCS.
Hai Jiang entered into a bareboat charter party with Subsea 7 International Contracting Ltd.
LCS was wound up and liquidators were appointed.
Singapore Technologies Marine filed a proof of debt of $4,971,098.65 in the liquidation of LCS.
Singapore Technologies Marine obtained an order from the Sharjah Federal Court of First Instance for a precautionary attachment against the Vessel.
Singapore Technologies Marine commenced a substantive suit in the Sharjah Court against Hai Jiang and LCS.
Defendant’s UAE lawyers letter stating intention of arresting the Vessel to pursue full recovery of debts under the CUA.
Plaintiff would face huge losses if the Vessel failed to leave Port Khalid on that date.
Plaintiff brought an action HC/OS 83/2018 and applied for an anti-suit injunction (ASI) against the Defendant.
Oral judgment given.
Written judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Whether an Anti-Suit Injunction should be granted
    • Outcome: The court granted the anti-suit injunction, finding that Singapore was the natural forum, the defendant's conduct was vexatious and oppressive, and there was a binding arbitration agreement.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Whether Singapore is the natural forum
      • Whether there is vexatious and oppressive conduct
      • The existence of a binding Arbitration Agreement
    • Related Cases:
      • [2019] SGCA 42
      • [2017] 4 SLR 1332
      • [2013] 3 SLR 409
      • [2009] 4 SLR(R) 428
  2. Assignment of the Arbitration Clause by the General Assignment
    • Outcome: The court found that there was a prima facie case that there is a valid arbitration clause binding the Defendant to arbitrate its claim in accordance with the CUA.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2002] BCC 221
      • [2018] SGHC 215
  3. The Sea Premium Shipping Ltd v Sea Consortium Pte Ltd line of cases
    • Outcome: The court found The Sea Premium line of cases persuasive and applicable as part of Singapore law.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2001] EWHC 540 (Admlty)
      • [2012] EWHC 2850 (Comm)
      • [2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 641
      • [2017] EWHC 2397 (Comm)
      • [2018] EWHC 3009 (Comm)
      • [2019] EWHC 2284
      • [2019] HKCFI 482

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Anti-Suit Injunction

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Arbitration
  • Maritime Dispute

11. Industries

  • Marine
  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Sea Premium Shipping Ltd v Sea Consortium Pte LtdHigh Court of JusticeYes[2001] EWHC 540 (Admlty)England and WalesAdopted the Sea Premium line of cases, where a claimant whose cause of action arises under a contract remains bound by the dispute resolution clause in that contract when pursuing a claim thereunder, albeit against someone who is not a party to that contract either by way of novation or subrogation.
Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar v Jhaveri Darsan JitendraCourt of AppealYes[2019] SGCA 42SingaporeSummarized the settled principles governing anti-suit injunctions.
BC Andaman Co Ltd and others v Xie Ning Yun and anotherHigh CourtYes[2017] 4 SLR 1332SingaporeAgreed with the factors identified in Morgan Stanley Asia (Singapore) Pte and others v Hong Leong Finance Ltd relevant to the grant of an anti-suit injunction.
Morgan Stanley Asia (Singapore) Pte (formerly known as Morgan Stanley Dean Witter Asia (Singapore) Pte) and others v Hong Leong Finance LtdHigh CourtYes[2013] 3 SLR 409SingaporeIdentified five factors relevant to the grant of an anti-suit injunction.
John Reginald Stott Kirkham and others v Trane US Inc and othersHigh CourtYes[2009] 4 SLR(R) 428SingaporeIdentified factors relevant to the grant of an anti-suit injunction.
Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex LtdHouse of LordsYes[1987] AC 460United KingdomEstablished the principle that a defendant seeking a stay must show that there is an alternative court which is ‘clearly or distinctly more appropriate’.
Tomolugen Holdings Ltd and another v Silica Investors Ltd and other appealsCourt of AppealYes[2016] 1 SLR 373SingaporeEstablished that the standard of a prima facie case has been adopted in the context of stay applications under s 6 of the International Arbitration Act.
Foamcrete (UK) Ltd v Thrust Engineering LtdCourt of AppealYes[2002] BCC 221United KingdomAddressed the issue of whether an agreement to assign predates the clause prohibiting assignment, then the prohibition does not operate.
Jurong Aromatics Corp Pte Ltd (receivers and managers appointed) and Others v BP Singapore Pte Ltd and another matterHigh CourtYes[2018] SGHC 215SingaporeAddressed a similar reliance on Foamcrete for the validity and efficacy of a floating charge over receivables created before a contractual prohibition against assignments was entered into.
Schiffahrtsgesellschaft Detlev von Appen v Voest Alpine Intertrading (“The Jay Bola”)Not AvailableYes[1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 279Not AvailableAn insurer, as the assignee of the voyage charterer, was held to take the assignment with the benefit and burden of the arbitration clause.
John Richard Ludbrooke Youell and others v Kara Mara Shipping Co Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[2000] EWHC 220 (Comm)England and WalesUnderwriters asserting rights under a Louisiana direct action statute were bound by the arbitration clause.
Jewel Owner Ltd and another v Sagaan Developments Trading Ltd (the “MD Gemini”)High CourtYes[2012] EWHC 2850 (Comm)England and WalesExtended the principle that the English courts take the view that, in general, they are entitled to treat a third party who wishes to take the benefit of the contract as bound by the burden of any exclusive jurisdiction clause therein.
Aggeliki Charis Compania Maritima SA v Pagnan SpA (“The Angelic Grace”)Court of AppealYes[1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 87England and WalesThe English courts granted an ASI to enforce exclusive forum clauses unless there were strong reasons to the contrary.
Donohue v Armco IncHouse of LordsYes[2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 425United KingdomRatified the approach of The Angelic Grace.
Maldives Airports Co Ltd and another v GMR Malé International Airport Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2013] 2 SLR 449SingaporeEndorsed The Angelic Grace.
Horn Linie GmbH v Panamericana Formas e Impresos SA (“The Hornbay”)Not AvailableYes[2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 44Not AvailableA third party could be entitled to enforce an exclusive jurisdiction clause where he was entitled to be treated as a party by virtue of a Himalaya clause.
Shipowner’s Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association (Luxembourg) v Containerships Denizcilik Nakliyat ve Ticaret AS (“The Yusuf Cepnioglu”)Court of AppealYes[2016] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 641England and WalesA victim suing insurers under a direct action statute was in fact enforcing the member’s contractual right to an indemnity from the Club.
Dell Emerging Markets (EMEA) Ltd and another v IB Maroc.com SAHigh CourtYes[2017] EWHC 2397 (Comm)England and WalesIt would be inequitable or oppressive and vexatious for a party to a contract to seek to enforce a contractual claim arising out of that contract without respecting the jurisdiction clause within that contract.
Qingdao Huiquan Shipping Co v Shanghai Dong He Xin Industry Group LtdHigh CourtYes[2018] EWHC 3009 (Comm)England and WalesA claimant abroad will be restrained by injunction from suing inconsistently with a forum clause contained in the contract which forms the basis of the claim.
Fair Wind Navigation v ACE Seguradora SAHigh CourtYes[2017] EWHC 3352 (Comm)England and WalesThe defendant seeks to sue the second [ASI] claimant under a contract but, whilst doing so, to omit that part of the contract that comprises an arbitration clause.
Clearlake Shipping Pte Ltd and another v Xiang Da Marine Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2019] EWHC 2284England and WalesThis ground for an anti-suit injunction appears to apply where there are foreign proceedings for breach of contract, there is an English jurisdiction clause in that contract, and the party seeking the anti-suit injunction denies that it is a party to that contract.
Dickson Valora Group (Holdings) Co Ltd v Fan Ji QianCourt of First InstanceYes[2019] HKCFI 482Hong KongA non-party to a contract who became entitled to enforce an obligation which was subject to an arbitration clause must do so by arbitration according to the contract.
Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-GeneralNot AvailableYes[2017] 2 SLR 850SingaporeJudicial review applications can consist of a pure question of law, such as the interpretation of the Constitution.
IW v IXNot AvailableYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 135SingaporeThe test for leave to appeal – whether there is a prima facie error of law.
Liaoyang Shunfeng Iron and Steel Co Ltd v Yuen Tsz WangCourt of AppealYes[2012] HKCU 1267Hong KongMentioned as an unhelpful case because one judge adopted the test of a “strong prima facie case” while another judge adopted the “high degree of probability” test.
Through Transport Mutual Insurance Association (Eurasia) Ltd v New India Assurance Co LtdHigh CourtYes[2005] EWHC 455 (Comm)England and WalesMentioned as a conflicting case regarding characterisation of third-party rights under foreign law.
London Steam Ship Owners Mutual Insurance Association Ltd v The Kingdom of Spain and another (“The Prestige”) (No 2)Court of AppealYes[2015] EWCA Civ 333England and WalesMentioned as a conflicting case regarding characterisation of third-party rights under foreign law.
West Tankers Inc v Ras Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta SpA and another (“The Front Comor”)High CourtYes[2005] EWHC 454 (Comm)England and WalesMentioned as a conflicting case regarding characterisation of third-party rights under foreign law.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Civil Law ActSingapore
Supreme Court of Judicature ActSingapore
International Arbitration ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Anti-Suit Injunction
  • Arbitration Agreement
  • Bareboat Charter Party
  • Crane Upgrade Agreement
  • General Assignment
  • Vexatious and Oppressive Conduct
  • Natural Forum
  • Kompetenz-Kompetenz
  • Prima Facie Case
  • Sea Premium Line of Cases

15.2 Keywords

  • Anti-Suit Injunction
  • Arbitration
  • Singapore
  • Maritime
  • Crane Upgrade
  • Contract Dispute

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Anti-suit injunction90
Civil Practice70
Arbitration65
Breach of Contract50
Contract Law50
Admiralty and Maritime Law40
Shipping Law40
Forum conveniens40
Property Law30
International Comity30

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Arbitration
  • Contract Law
  • Maritime Law