POS Maritime NX S.A. v Caraka Jaya Niaga III-11: Collision, Time-Bar & Single Liability Principle
In POS Maritime NX S.A. and Pan Ocean Co., Ltd. v Owner and/or Demise Charterer of the vessel Caraka Jaya Niaga III-11, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore addressed the question of whether the defendant could rely on the single liability principle to reduce the plaintiff's claim, given that the defendant's counterclaim was time-barred. The court determined that the defendant could not rely on the single liability principle.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
The court determined that the Defendant is not able to rely on or raise the ‘single liability principle’ in diminution and/or reduction of the Plaintiff’s claim in this action in circumstances where the Defendant’s counterclaim against the Plaintiff is time-barred.
1.3 Case Type
Admiralty
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court addressed whether a defendant with a time-barred counterclaim could invoke the single liability principle to reduce liability in a collision case. The court ruled against it.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| POS Maritime NX S.A. | Plaintiff | Corporation | Question answered in the negative | Lost | |
| Pan Ocean Co., Ltd. | Plaintiff | Corporation | Question answered in the negative | Lost | |
| Owner and/or Demise Charterer of the vessel Caraka Jaya Niaga III-11 (IMO No. 9018359) | Defendant | Other | Question answered in the negative | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| S Mohan | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- A collision occurred between the Grand Ace12 and the Caraka Jaya Niaga III-11 on 3 April 2017.
- Both the plaintiffs and the defendant claimed to have suffered loss and damage as a result of the collision.
- The plaintiffs issued an in rem writ against the Caraka Jaya Niaga-III 11 on 29 March 2019.
- The defendant issued an in rem writ against the Grand Ace12 on 13 May 2019, which lapsed on 13 May 2020.
- The defendant's application for an extension of time to maintain a counterclaim was dismissed on 4 October 2019.
- The plaintiffs and defendant entered into a Consent Judgment on 11 June 2020, apportioning blame for the collision.
5. Formal Citations
- The “CARAKA JAYA NIAGA III-11”, Admiralty in Rem No 48 of 2019 (Summons No 2585 of 2020), [2021] SGHC 43
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Collision occurred between the Grand Ace12 and the Caraka Jaya Niaga III-11. | |
| Plaintiffs issued an in rem writ against the Caraka Jaya Niaga-III 11 in HC/ADM 48/2019. | |
| Time-bar to bring proceedings came into effect. | |
| Writ in ADM 48 was served on the Caraka Jaya Niaga-III 11. | |
| Defendant issued an in rem writ against the Grand Ace12 in HC/ADM 64/2019. | |
| Defendant applied for an extension of time to maintain a counterclaim. | |
| Application for extension of time was heard by an assistant registrar. | |
| Application for extension of time was dismissed. | |
| Writ in ADM 64 lapsed. | |
| Plaintiffs and defendant entered into a Consent Judgment. | |
| Hearing of SUM 2585. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Applicability of the single liability principle when a counterclaim is time-barred
- Outcome: The court held that the single liability principle does not apply when the defendant's counterclaim is time-barred.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1882] 7 App Cas 795
- [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Law Reports 140
- Time-bar under s 8 of the Maritime Conventions Act 1911
- Outcome: The court confirmed that the time-bar under s 8 MCA 1911 is procedural in nature and bars the remedy sought by the plaintiff.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Collision
- Negligence
10. Practice Areas
- Admiralty
- Shipping
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Shipping
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Khedive | House of Lords | Yes | [1882] 7 App Cas 795 | England and Wales | Cited for the application of the single liability principle in cases of collision where both vessels are at fault. |
| MIOM 1 Ltd v Sea Echo ENE (No 2) | English High Court | Yes | [2012] 1 Lloyd’s Law Reports 140 | England and Wales | Cited for the proposition that the single liability principle can be invoked even when a counterclaim is time-barred; however, the court in this case disagreed with the reasoning in Sea Echo. |
| Aries Tanker Corporation v. Total Transport Ltd (The Aries) | N/A | Yes | [1977] 1 WLR 185 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a time bar under s 8 MCA 1911 bars the remedy sought by the plaintiff. |
| The Aries Tanker Corporation v Total Transport Limited | N/A | Yes | [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 334 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a time bar under s 8 MCA 1911 bars the remedy sought by the plaintiff. |
| The El Arish | N/A | Yes | [1994] 1 SLR(R) 141 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that s 8 MCA 1911 applies equally to counterclaims. |
| The Pearl of Jebel Ali | N/A | Yes | [2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 484 | N/A | Cited for the principle that s 190 of the UK Merchant Shipping Act 1995 applies equally to counterclaims. |
| The Seringapatam | N/A | Yes | (1848) 3 Wm Rob 38 | England and Wales | Cited for the discussion of claims and cross-claims in collision cases, but distinguished on its facts. |
| The Tojo Maru | N/A | Yes | [1970] P. 21 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the single liability principle does not pertain to set-off. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Maritime Conventions Act 1911 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Single liability principle
- Time-bar
- Collision
- Maritime Conventions Act 1911
- Counterclaim
- In rem writ
- Apportionment of liability
15.2 Keywords
- Collision
- Single liability principle
- Time-barred counterclaim
- Admiralty law
- Shipping law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Admiralty and Maritime Law | 90 |
| Collision | 90 |
| Shipping | 90 |
| Limitation | 70 |
| Civil Procedure | 50 |
| Debt Recovery | 40 |
| Breach of Contract | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Admiralty
- Shipping
- Civil Procedure
- Maritime Law