Owner of Vessel 'BARUNA 1' v Owner of Vessel 'BIG FISH': Forum Election, Striking Out, Action in Rem
In a dispute between the owner of the vessel 'BARUNA 1' and the owner of the vessel 'BIG FISH' following a collision in Indonesian waters, the Singapore High Court addressed issues of forum election, striking out the Singapore action, and setting aside the warrant of arrest. The Defendant sought to force the Plaintiff to elect between proceedings in Singapore and Indonesia, strike out the Singapore action as time-barred, and set aside the arrest for material non-disclosure. The court made no order on the prayers for forum election and dismissed the prayer for striking out. However, the court set aside the warrant of arrest for material non-disclosure, with the issue of wrongful arrest reserved to the trial judge.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Warrant of arrest set aside for material non-disclosure; prayer to strike out Singapore Action dismissed; issue of wrongful arrest reserved to trial judge.
1.3 Case Type
Admiralty
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court judgment on forum election, striking out, and action in rem following a vessel collision in Indonesian waters.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Owner and/or Demise Charterer of the vessel(s) “BARUNA 1”, “BPL 1” | Plaintiff | Corporation | Warrant of arrest set aside | Lost | |
| Owner of the vessel “BIG FISH” | Defendant | Corporation | Warrant of arrest set aside | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Navin Anand | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- A collision occurred between the 'BPL 1' and the 'BIG FISH' in the Java Sea on 22 January 2019.
- The Defendant commenced proceedings in Indonesia on 21 January 2021, claiming damages from the collision.
- The Plaintiff commenced an in rem action in Singapore on 11 February 2021 and arrested the 'BIG FISH'.
- The Plaintiff filed a counterclaim in the Indonesian action on 5 April 2021.
- The Plaintiff revoked the Indonesian Counterclaim on 27 April 2021.
- The Plaintiff did not disclose the two-year limitation period under Article 742 of the Indonesian Commercial Code when applying for the warrant of arrest.
5. Formal Citations
- The “Big Fish”, Admiralty in Rem No 14 of 2021 (Summons No 1924 of 2021), [2021] SGHCR 7
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Collision between 'BPL 1' and 'BIG FISH' in the Java Sea | |
| Defendant commenced proceedings in the East Jakarta District Court | |
| Plaintiff issued an in rem writ in Singapore against the Defendant | |
| Plaintiff obtained a warrant of arrest against the Vessel | |
| Vessel was arrested in Singapore | |
| Vessel was released after the Defendant provided security | |
| Plaintiff filed a counterclaim against the Defendant in the Indonesian Action | |
| Defendant's solicitors sought confirmation on which court action the Plaintiff intended to maintain | |
| Plaintiff's solicitors responded but provided no confirmation | |
| Pre-trial conference held | |
| Plaintiff's solicitors asked if the Defendant was prepared to extend the security provided for the Singapore Action to the Indonesian Counterclaim | |
| Defendant filed application | |
| Plaintiff sought leave to revoke the Indonesian Counterclaim | |
| East Jakarta District Court permitted the Plaintiff to revoke the Indonesian Counterclaim and re-file its statement of defence | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment |
7. Legal Issues
- Forum Election
- Outcome: Court made no order on the prayers for forum election as the Plaintiff had elected to pursue its claim in the Singapore Action.
- Category: Procedural
- Striking Out
- Outcome: Prayer to strike out the Singapore Action was dismissed.
- Category: Procedural
- Material Non-Disclosure
- Outcome: Warrant of arrest was set aside for material non-disclosure.
- Category: Procedural
- Wrongful Arrest
- Outcome: The issue of wrongful arrest was reserved to the trial judge.
- Category: Substantive
- Limitation Period
- Outcome: The court found triable issues of Indonesian law regarding the applicable limitation period.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages for wrongful arrest
- Setting aside the warrant of arrest
- Discontinuance of the Singapore Action
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
- Tort
10. Practice Areas
- Admiralty Law
- Shipping Law
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Shipping
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Atlantic Star | N/A | Yes | [1974] AC 436 | N/A | Cited generally regarding admiralty emporium. |
| Virsagi Management (S) Pte Ltd v Welltech Construction Pte Ltd and another appeal | N/A | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 1097 | Singapore | Cited for the principles of common plaintiff lis alibi pendens and forum election. |
| Ang Ming Chuang v Singapore Airlines Ltd (Civil Aeronautics Administration, third party) | N/A | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR(R) 409 | Singapore | Cited regarding the court not needing to put the Plaintiff to an election. |
| Liew Soon Fook Michael and another v Yi Kai Development Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 88 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a time-barred claim is legally unsustainable and will be struck out. |
| Pacific Recreation Pte Ltd v S Y Technology Inc and another appeal | N/A | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 491 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that issues of foreign law are treated as questions of fact. |
| The “Bunga Melati 5” | N/A | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 546 | Singapore | Cited for the high threshold for striking out based on factual unsustainability. |
| Antariksa Logistics Pte Ltd and others v Nurdian Cuaca and others | N/A | Yes | [2018] 3 SLR 117 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court should only exercise its power to strike out in plain and obvious cases. |
| Vita Health Laboratories Pte Ltd and others v Pang Seng Meng | N/A | Yes | [2004] 4 SLR(R) 162 | Singapore | Cited regarding the weight of evidence from an advocate. |
| The “Vasiliy Golovnin” | N/A | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 994 | Singapore | Cited for the duty to make full and frank disclosure of all material facts when applying for an arrest on an ex parte basis. |
| The “Rainbow Spring” | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 362 | Singapore | Cited for the importance of the duty to make full and frank disclosure when applying for arrest. |
| The “Damavand” | N/A | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR(R) 136 | Singapore | Cited for the test of materiality in determining whether a fact should be disclosed. |
| The “Eagle Prestige” | N/A | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 294 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is generally no duty to disclose plausible defenses that may be raised at trial, unless the defense is of such weight as to deliver a knockout blow to the claim summarily. |
| The “Xin Chang Shu” | N/A | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 1096 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is generally no duty to disclose plausible defenses that may be raised at trial, unless the defense is of such weight as to deliver a knockout blow to the claim summarily. |
| The “Vinalines Pioneer” | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHCR 1 | Singapore | Cited as an illustration of the principles regarding the duty of disclosure of a potential time bar defence. |
| The “Vinalines Pioneer” | N/A | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 448 | Singapore | Cited as an illustration of the principles regarding the duty of disclosure of a potential time bar defence. |
| The “AA V” | N/A | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 664 | Singapore | Cited regarding the court requiring further clarification on why the limitation period was not applicable. |
| The “Fierbinti” | N/A | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR(R) 574 | Singapore | Cited regarding the court retaining an overriding discretion not to set aside the warrant of arrest. |
| Treasure Valley Group Ltd v Saputra Teddy and another (Ultramarine Holdings Ltd, intervener) | N/A | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 358 | Singapore | Cited regarding the court condemning material non-disclosure by setting aside the ex parte order. |
| The “STX Mumbai” and another matter | N/A | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited regarding reserving the question of wrongful arrest to the trial judge. |
| Sakthivel Punithavathi v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 983 | Singapore | Cited for the need for cross-examination to test experts' views. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 18 rr 19(1)(a) – 19(1)(d) of the Rules |
| O 70 r 17(2) of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Article 742 of the Indonesian Commercial Code | Indonesia |
| s 3(1) of the Foreign Limitation Periods Act (Cap 111A, 2013 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Article 1979 [Indonesian Civil Code] | Indonesia |
| Article 1 [KUHD] | Indonesia |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Lis alibi pendens
- Forum election
- Material non-disclosure
- Warrant of arrest
- Action in rem
- Limitation period
- Wrongful arrest
- Collision
- Indonesian Commercial Code
- Indonesian Civil Code
15.2 Keywords
- Admiralty
- Shipping
- Collision
- Arrest
- Singapore
- Indonesia
- Forum Election
- Striking Out
- Material Non-Disclosure
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Admiralty and Maritime Law | 90 |
| Forum election | 80 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Lis alibi pendens | 70 |
| Duty of disclosure | 70 |
| Striking out | 65 |
| International Law | 60 |
| Arbitration | 30 |
| Contract Law | 25 |
| Breach of Contract | 25 |
16. Subjects
- Admiralty Law
- Shipping Law
- Civil Procedure
- Conflict of Laws