Banque Cantonale v Jeil Crystal: Admiralty Claim Amendment & Warrant of Arrest

In ADM 256/2020, Banque Cantonale de Geneve, a financial institution, sued Jeil International Co Ltd, the owner of the vessel “Jeil Crystal”, for breach of contract and negligence related to the switching of bills of lading. The plaintiff initially obtained a warrant of arrest based on a claim of misdelivery without the original bills of lading, but later sought to amend its claim. The defendant applied to set aside the writ and warrant of arrest. The High Court of Singapore allowed the amendment and upheld the warrant, finding the amended claim fell within admiralty jurisdiction. The defendant's appeal to set aside the warrant of arrest was dismissed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Warrant of Arrest upheld on the basis of the amended claim.

1.3 Case Type

Admiralty

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court addresses whether a warrant of arrest can be upheld based on an amended claim not originally pleaded. Judgment upholds warrant.

1.7 Decision Date

29 December 2021

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Owners of or other persons interested in the cargo lately laden onboard “Jeil Crystal”	Plaintiff	Other	Application allowed	Won	Liew Teck Huat of Niru & Co LLC Ow Jiang Benjamin of Niru & Co LLC
Owner of the vessel “Jeil Crystal”	Defendant	Corporation	Application dismissed	Lost	Tan Chai Ming Mark of Focus Law Asia LLC Ahn Mi Mi of Focus Law Asia LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
S Mohan	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Liew Teck Huat	Niru & Co LLC
Ow Jiang Benjamin	Niru & Co LLC
Tan Chai Ming Mark	Focus Law Asia LLC
Ahn Mi Mi	Focus Law Asia LLC

4. Facts

Plaintiff provided trade financing to GP Global for a cargo shipped on defendant's vessel.
Defendant issued original bills of lading with plaintiff as consignee.
Plaintiff delivered original bills of lading to GP Global at their request.
Defendant agreed with GP Global to switch the original bills of lading.
Defendant discharged cargo without production of original bills of lading.
Plaintiff commenced action and obtained warrant of arrest based on claim of misdelivery.
Plaintiff later sought to amend claim to allege wrongful switching of bills of lading.

5. Formal Citations

The “Jeil Crystal”, Admiralty in Rem No 256 of 2020 (Summons Nos 586 and 599 of 2021), [2021] SGHC 292

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2020-05-12	IRPC Public Company Limited entered into a contract to sell Cargo to GP Global APAC Pte Ltd.
2020-05-13	GP Global on-sold the Cargo to Prime Oil Trading Pte Ltd.
2020-05-16	GP Global chartered the Vessel from the defendant.
2020-05-28	Plaintiff issued an irrevocable Documentary Credit No. DC123770/MBX.
2020-06-13	Defendant issued three originals of Bill of Lading No. EX384/2020.
2020-06-16	Defendant received an email from RG Chartering containing GP Global’s instructions to issue a new set of bills in exchange for the Original BL.
2020-06-23	Plaintiff confirmed that it had received the documents required by the LC, including the full set of the Original BL.
2020-06-24	Plaintiff delivered the Original BL to GP Global.
2020-06-29	GP Global received the full set of the Original BL and surrendered them to Dae Myung.
2020-06-29	Defendant issued the switch bills of lading according to GP Global’s instructions.
2020-06-30	Vessel arrived at Chattogram, Bangladesh and the defendant discharged and delivered the Cargo to Standard Asiatic.
2020-07-22	Standard Asiatic surrendered the original Switch BL to the defendant’s agent’s office in Chittagong.
2020-08-10	Plaintiff wrote to the defendant and the master of the Vessel giving notice to them not to allow the Cargo to be discharged without their written consent.
2020-10-10	Plaintiff commenced ADM 256 by issuing an admiralty in rem Writ of Summons against the Vessel.
2020-10-10	Plaintiff applied for a warrant of arrest against the Vessel.
2020-10-11	Vessel was arrested.
2020-10-13	Plaintiff confirmed that it held the full set of the Original BL.
2020-10-15	Assistant registrar granted a consent order that the defendant be at liberty to pay into court the sum of S$2,100,000.
2020-10-20	Defendant’s payment of the said sum into court.
2020-10-21	Vessel was released.
2020-11-04	Filing of the plaintiff’s Statement of Claim.
2020-11-16	Plaintiff’s counsel responded that it was taking steps to make the Original BL available for inspection.
2020-11-30	Defendant filed its Defence and Counterclaim.
2020-12-14	Inspection of the Original BL at the defendant’s solicitors’ office.
2021-01-15	Plaintiff filed its Reply and Defence to Counterclaim.
2021-02-04	Plaintiff filed HC/SUM 586/2021 seeking leave to amend its Statement of Claim.
2021-02-05	Defendant filed HC/SUM 599/2020 seeking to set aside the Writ and WA 39.
2021-05-17	Court heard the parties.
2021-06-15	Court heard the parties and allowed the plaintiff’s application in SUM 586 and dismissed the defendant’s application in SUM 599.
2021-06-18	Defendant wrote to the court requesting to make further arguments on decision to uphold WA 39.
2021-06-21	Plaintiff replied to further arguments.
2021-06-29	Defendant replied to the plaintiff’s further arguments.
2021-07-12	Court dismissed the defendant’s further arguments and affirmed earlier decision made on 15 June 2021.
2021-07-27	Defendant filed AD/OS 34/2021 seeking an extension of time from the Appellate Division to seek leave to appeal.
2021-08-12	Appellate Division allowed the extension.
2021-08-17	Defendant filed AD/OS 39/2021 seeking leave from the Appellate Division to appeal.
2021-09-23	Appellate Division granted the defendant leave to appeal on one issue.

7. Legal Issues

Validity of Warrant of Arrest
- Outcome: The court held that the warrant of arrest could be upheld on the basis of an amended claim, even if that claim was not originally pleaded at the time of the application for the warrant.
- Category: Procedural
Material Non-Disclosure
- Outcome: The court acknowledged material non-disclosure by the plaintiff but exercised its discretion not to set aside the arrest.
- Category: Procedural
Amendment of Pleadings
- Outcome: The court allowed the plaintiff to amend its Statement of Claim, finding that the amended claim fell within the court's admiralty jurisdiction.
- Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Negligence

10. Practice Areas

Admiralty
Shipping
Civil Litigation

11. Industries

Shipping
Finance

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Victory Star Shipping Company S.A. v The Owners and All Those Interested In The Ship “Amigo” and World Happy Shipping Limited	Hong Kong Court of First Instance	Yes	[1991] HKCFI 64	Hong Kong	Cited by the defendant to argue that the warrant of arrest should be set aside because it was based on a non-existent cause of action and that even if the amended Statement of Claim could cure the defect in the Writ, it could not cure the defect in the warrant of arrest.
The “Ohm Mariana” ex “Peony”	High Court	Yes	[1992] 1 SLR(R) 556	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court’s admiralty jurisdiction is essentially statutory and that threshold jurisdiction cannot be waived or conferred by agreement.
The “Alexandrea”	High Court	Yes	[2002] 1 SLR(R) 812	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court’s admiralty jurisdiction is essentially statutory and that threshold jurisdiction cannot be waived or conferred by agreement.
The “Indriani”	High Court	Yes	[1995] 2 SLR(R) 458	Singapore	Cited to support the view that the words “any claim arising out of” are to be read widely as any claim which is “connected with the agreement”.
The Antonis P Lemos; Samick Lines Co Ltd v Owners of the Antonis P Lemos	House of Lords	Yes	[1985] AC 711	United Kingdom	Cited to support the view that s 3(1)(h) HCAJA is wide enough to encompass claims in tort and that the “agreement” need not be between the plaintiff and the defendant shipowner.
The “Bunga Melati 5”	High Court	Yes	[2012] 4 SLR 546	Singapore	Cited for the requirements for the valid invocation of the court’s admiralty jurisdiction.
Pan-United Shipyard Pte Ltd v The Chase Manhattan Bank (National Association)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 1 SLR(R) 703	Singapore	Cited for the principle that any defect in the indorsement of claim can be cured by the delivery of a proper statement of claim.
The “Xin Chang Shu”	High Court	Yes	[2016] 1 SLR 1096	Singapore	Cited for the close relationship between a writ in rem and a warrant of arrest.
Saga Foodstuffs Manufacturing (Pte) Ltd v Best Food Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1994] 1 SLR(R) 505	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an amendment is retrospective to the original date that the pleading was filed.
The “Jarguh Sawit”	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1997] 3 SLR(R) 829	Singapore	Cited for endorsing the holding in Saga Foodstuffs that a new cause of action that arose after the date of the writ could not introduced by way of an amendment.
The “Vasiliy Golovnin”	High Court	Yes	[2008] 4 SLR(R) 994	Singapore	Cited for the principle that ship arrest is a powerful weapon in an admiralty claimant’s armoury, and if abused, can be financially ruinous to a shipowner.
The “AA V”	High Court	Yes	[1999] 3 SLR(R) 664	Singapore	Cited for the principle that material non-disclosure is an independent ground for setting aside an arrest.
The “Rainbow Spring”	High Court	Yes	[2003] 3 SLR(R) 362	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the duty to make full and frank disclosure is an important bulwark against the abuse of the arrest process.
Treasure Valley Group Ltd v Saputra Teddy and another (Ultramarine Holdings Ltd, intervener	High Court	Yes	[2006] 1 SLR(R) 358	Singapore	Cited for the principle that where a court condemns material non-disclosure by setting aside the warrant of arrest obtained ex parte, it does so in the public interest to discourage abuse of its ex parte procedure.
The “Fierbinti”	High Court	Yes	[1994] 3 SLR(R) 574	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court always retains an overriding discretion whether or not to set aside a warrant of arrest.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123, 2001 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Warrant of Arrest
Bills of Lading
Admiralty Jurisdiction
Material Non-Disclosure
Amendment of Pleadings
Relation Back Rule
Switch Bills of Lading

15.2 Keywords

Admiralty
Shipping
Warrant of Arrest
Bills of Lading
Singapore
Amendment
Jurisdiction

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Admiralty and Maritime Law	95
Admiralty Jurisdiction and Arrest	80
Practice and procedure of action in rem	70
Civil Procedure	70
Civil Practice	60
Warrant of arrest	60
Effect of amendment of statement of claim on in rem writ and warrant of arrest	50
Contract Law	40
Negligence	40
Breach of Contract	40
Shipping Disputes	30
Arbitration	10
Criminal Procedure	5

16. Subjects

Admiralty
Shipping
Civil Procedure