AS Fortuna Opco BV v Sea Consortium: Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims

AS Fortuna Opco BV and AS Fortuna Shipco CV, the Plaintiffs, sought to limit their liability following the running aground of the vessel AS Fortuna in Ecuador. The High Court of Singapore, presided over by Justice Pang Khang Chau, addressed the applicable post-constitution interest rate for the limitation fund and the appropriate costs order. The court fixed the post-constitution interest rate at 2.5% per annum and specified the allocation of costs between the parties.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiffs' application to limit liability granted; post-constitution interest rate fixed at 2.5% per annum; costs order specified.

1.3 Case Type

Admiralty

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Plaintiffs sought to limit liability after the vessel AS Fortuna ran aground. The court addressed the post-constitution interest rate and costs order.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Pang Khang ChauJudgeYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. The vessel AS Fortuna ran aground at or around Guayaquil, Ecuador on or around 13 September 2018.
  2. The Plaintiffs, AS Fortuna Opco BV and AS Fortuna Shipco CV, sought to limit their liability.
  3. The Defendants are potential claimants against the Plaintiffs and/or the Vessel.
  4. None of the Defendants contested the Plaintiffs’ entitlement to limit liability.
  5. The limitation fund was constituted by way of a letter of undertaking from a Protection and Indemnity Club.
  6. The parties disagreed on the applicable post-constitution interest rate.
  7. The parties disagreed on the appropriate costs order to be made.

5. Formal Citations

  1. AS Fortuna Opco BV and another v Sea Consortium Pte Ltd and others, , [2020] SGHC 72

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Vessel AS Fortuna ran aground at or around Guayaquil, Ecuador.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Plaintiffs deposited the executed letter of undertaking in court.
Plaintiffs filed an application for leave to replace the letter of undertaking.
Hearing date.
Judgment date.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Post-Constitution Interest Rate
    • Outcome: The court fixed the post-constitution interest rate at 2.5% per annum.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Costs of Uncontested Limitation Decrees
    • Outcome: The court specified the allocation of costs between the parties, outlining which costs the shipowner should pay and which costs each party should bear.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Limitation of Liability
  2. Constitution of a Limitation Fund

9. Cause of Actions

  • Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims

10. Practice Areas

  • Admiralty
  • Shipping
  • Maritime Claims

11. Industries

  • Shipping

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
The FunabashiEnglish courtsYes[1972] 1 WLR 666EnglandCited regarding the Admiralty court's practice of awarding interest on a limitation fund.
The TheemsEnglish courtsYes[1938] P 197EnglandCited as an example of early English courts referencing the statutory interest rate on judgment debts.
The Garden City (No 2)English courtsYes[1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 37EnglandCited regarding the determination of pre-judgment interest on debts and damages.
Pacific International Lines (Pte) Ltd and others v Govan Mani & Co Pty Ltd and othersHigh CourtYesHC/ADM 17/2016SingaporeCited as a local precedent concerning limitation funds constituted by production of letters of undertaking.
Thoresen Shipping Singapore Pte Ltd and others v Global Symphony SA and othersHigh CourtYesHC/ADM 46/2017SingaporeCited as a local precedent concerning limitation funds constituted by production of letters of undertaking.
Falcon Grace Pte Ltd and others v Vopak Terminals Singapore Pte Ltd and othersHigh CourtYesHC/ADM 116/2017SingaporeCited as a local precedent concerning limitation funds constituted by production of letters of undertaking.
The “Alletta” (No 2)Queen's BenchYes[1972] 2 QB 399EnglandConsidered regarding costs in a contested application for limitation of liability.
The “Capitan San Luis”Not AvailableYes[1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 573EnglandConsidered regarding costs in a contested application for limitation of liability under the 1976 Convention.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 42 r 12(1)
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 70 r 36A(1)(b)
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 70 r 37(6)
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 90 r 12(4)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Merchant Shipping Act (Cap 179, 1996 Rev Ed)Singapore
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Limitation fund
  • Post-constitution interest rate
  • Letter of undertaking
  • Pre-constitution interest
  • Limitation of liability
  • Maritime claims
  • Merchant Shipping Act
  • 1976 Convention
  • Special Drawing Rights
  • Admiralty
  • Vessel AS Fortuna

15.2 Keywords

  • Admiralty
  • Shipping
  • Limitation of Liability
  • Maritime Claims
  • AS Fortuna
  • Singapore High Court

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Admiralty
  • Shipping
  • Limitation of Liability
  • Maritime Law