Batavia EXIMP v Owner of New Breeze: Stay of Proceedings & Time Bar Defence in Arbitration
Batavia EXIMP & Contracting (S) Pte Ltd (Appellant) commenced an admiralty action against the Owner of the vessels New Breeze & 9 Ors (Respondent) in the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore on 27 October 2021, regarding claims under several bills of lading. The Respondent applied for a stay of proceedings under s 6(1) of the International Arbitration Act, which was granted. The Appellant appealed, arguing the stay should be conditional on the Respondent waiving a time bar defence. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the stay should be unconditional, as the Appellant failed to protect its own commercial interests.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Admiralty
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding stay of admiralty action in favor of arbitration. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the stay should be unconditional.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Batavia EXIMP & Contracting (S) Pte Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Bazul Ashhab bin Abdul Kader, Prakaash s/o Paniar Silvam, Tan Yu Hang, Levin Lin Lok Yan |
| Owner of the vessels New Breeze & 9 Ors | Respondent | Other | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Cai Jianye Edwin, Dawn Tan Si Jie |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | No |
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Bazul Ashhab bin Abdul Kader | Oon & Bazul LLP |
| Prakaash s/o Paniar Silvam | Oon & Bazul LLP |
| Tan Yu Hang | Oon & Bazul LLP |
| Levin Lin Lok Yan | Oon & Bazul LLP |
| Cai Jianye Edwin | AsiaLegal LLC |
| Dawn Tan Si Jie | AsiaLegal LLC |
4. Facts
- Appellant commenced admiralty action against the respondent in respect of claims under several bills of lading.
- The bills of lading incorporated terms of a charterparty, including an arbitration clause.
- Appellant failed to ascertain full details of the incorporated terms before the time bar accrued.
- Respondent applied for and obtained an unconditional stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration.
- Appellant sought a conditional stay, requiring the respondent to waive the time bar defence.
- The appellant entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Amrose Singapore Pte Ltd for financing of Amrose’s purchase of New Zealand pine logs.
- The appellant procured the Bank of Baroda to issue letters of credit to TPT Forests for shipments of New Zealand pine logs from New Zealand to India.
5. Formal Citations
- The Navios Koyo, Civil Appeal No 19 of 2021, [2021] SGCA 99
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Charter party dated | |
| Appellant entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Amrose Singapore Pte Ltd | |
| Bills of Lading dated | |
| Bills of Lading dated | |
| Appellant received the Bills of Lading from the Bank of Baroda | |
| Taikoo Brilliance entered Kandla Port, India, and commenced discharge of the Cargo | |
| Discharge of the cargo was completed | |
| Taikoo Brilliance departed from Kandla Port | |
| Appellant commenced Admiralty Actions against the respondent | |
| Navios Koyo arrested | |
| The North of England P&I Association Limited wrote to the appellant’s solicitors | |
| Appellant’s solicitors replied, enclosing the Writ and Warrant of Arrest | |
| Solicitors for the time charterer of the Taikoo Brilliance, The China Navigation Co wrote to the appellant’s solicitors | |
| China Navigation’s solicitors replied | |
| Order made releasing the vessel | |
| Respondent took out summonses to stay the Admiralty Actions in favour of arbitration | |
| The Assistant Registrar heard the application | |
| The AR issued his decision and granted an unconditional stay | |
| Appellant appealed | |
| Appellant commenced arbitration against the respondent in London | |
| Judge heard the parties | |
| Appeal dismissed | |
| Grounds of decision delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Stay of Proceedings
- Outcome: The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the stay should be unconditional.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2016] 1 SLR 373
- Time Bar Defence
- Outcome: The Court held that the issue of the time bar was a substantive defence to be determined at the arbitration.
- Category: Substantive
- Conditional Stay
- Outcome: The Court held that the stay should be unconditional, not conditional on the respondent waiving its right to rely on a defence of time bar.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1997] 3 SLR(R) 360
- [2008] 4 SLR(R) 984
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of contract under bills of lading
10. Practice Areas
- Arbitration
- Commercial Litigation
- Admiralty
- Shipping
11. Industries
- Shipping
- Finance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tomolugen Holdings Ltd and another v Silica Investors Ltd and other appeals | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 373 | Singapore | Cited for principles to argue for a stay under s 6(1) of the IAA. |
| The Xanadu | High Court | No | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 360 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that a condition imposed for a stay can be that any defence of time bar be waived. |
| The Duden | High Court | No | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 984 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that a condition imposed for a stay can be that any defence of time bar be waived. |
| Splosna Plovba International Shipping and Chartering d o o v Adria Orient Line Pte Ltd | High Court | No | [1998] SGHC 289 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that one of the conditions which the Court ultimately imposed was that security of US$50,000 be provided for arbitration in London. |
| KVC Rice Intertrade Co Ltd v Asian Mineral Resources Pte Ltd and another suit | High Court | No | [2017] 4 SLR 182 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that the condition imposed was that the defendant was not to raise objections to the jurisdiction of the President of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre to appoint an arbitrator if parties proved unable to reach agreement on the appointment of an arbitrator. |
| The Titan Unity | High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHCR 28 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that it is not for the courts to pick and determine what issues should be placed before the arbitral tribunal by way of imposing conditions to a stay of court proceedings, where parties have already consented to refer their dispute to arbitration, and where the relevant issues fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement. |
| The Channel Ranger | High Court | Yes | [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 337 | England and Wales | Cited for the observation that general words of incorporation will not be effective to incorporate an arbitration clause because such clauses are ancillary to the main contract to which they relate, but that specific reference to an arbitration clause will be effective. |
| The Channel Ranger | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 256 | England and Wales | Cited for upholding the observation that general words of incorporation will not be effective to incorporate an arbitration clause because such clauses are ancillary to the main contract to which they relate, but that specific reference to an arbitration clause will be effective. |
| T W Thomas & Co v Portsea Steamship Co Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1912] AC 1 | United Kingdom | Cited as representing a stream of authority dating back to T W Thomas & Co v Portsea Steamship Co Ltd [1912] AC 1 at 7. |
| Star-Trans Far East Pte Ltd v Norske-Tech Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 196 | Singapore | Cited for adopting a similar position in Star-Trans Far East Pte Ltd v Norske-Tech Ltd [1996] 2 SLR(R) 196 at [28]. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| International Arbitration Act | Singapore |
| s 6(1) of the International Arbitration Act | Singapore |
| s 6(2) of the International Arbitration Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Arbitration clause
- Stay of proceedings
- Time bar defence
- Bills of lading
- Charterparty
- International Arbitration Act
- Admiralty action
- Conditional stay
- Unconditional stay
15.2 Keywords
- arbitration
- stay of proceedings
- time bar
- bills of lading
- admiralty
- shipping
16. Subjects
- Arbitration
- Admiralty
- Shipping
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Arbitration Law
- Admiralty Law
- Shipping Law
- Civil Procedure