Navigator Aries v Leo Perdana: Apportionment of Liability & Costs After Marine Collision
The Court of Appeal heard an appeal by the owner of the vessel "Navigator Aries" against the owner of the vessel "Leo Perdana" regarding the apportionment of liability for a collision in the Surabaya Strait. The High Court had apportioned liability 70:30 in favor of Leo Perdana. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, apportioning liability 50:50 and addressing the impact of a pre-trial offer to settle and a Calderbank offer on the costs orders. The court also considered the costs of the appellant's application to transfer the appeal from the Appellate Division to the Court of Appeal.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed in part.
1.3 Case Type
Admiralty
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding liability apportionment after a collision between Navigator Aries and Leo Perdana. The court addressed the impact of settlement offers on costs.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Owner of the vessel “NAVIGATOR ARIES” | Appellant, Plaintiff, Defendant | Corporation | Appeal allowed in part | Partial | |
| Owner of the vessel “LEO PERDANA” | Respondent, Defendant, Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeal dismissed in part | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- A collision occurred in the Surabaya Strait between the Navigator Aries and the Leo Perdana on 28 June 2015.
- Both vessels commenced admiralty actions in the High Court, which were consolidated on 11 November 2016.
- The respondent served an offer to settle on 16 May 2018, proposing a 60:40 liability apportionment in its favor.
- The High Court apportioned liability 70:30 in the respondent's favor on 13 September 2021.
- The appellant served a Calderbank offer on 10 August 2022, proposing a 50:50 liability apportionment.
- The Court of Appeal apportioned liability 50:50 on 7 July 2023.
5. Formal Citations
- The “Navigator Aries”, Civil Appeal No 45 of 2022, [2023] SGCA 26
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Collision occurred between Navigator Aries and Leo Perdana | |
| Owner of Navigator Aries commenced admiralty action in the High Court | |
| Owner of Leo Perdana commenced admiralty action in the High Court | |
| Admiralty actions were consolidated | |
| Owner of Leo Perdana served an offer to settle | |
| High Court delivered oral judgment apportioning liability 70:30 in favor of Leo Perdana | |
| Judge made costs orders | |
| Owner of Navigator Aries filed appeal against the Judge’s decision | |
| Owner of Navigator Aries served a Calderbank offer | |
| Owner of Navigator Aries applied to transfer the appeal from the Appellate Division to the Court of Appeal | |
| Application to transfer the appeal was granted | |
| Owner of Leo Perdana withdrew its offer to settle | |
| Appeal was heard | |
| Owner of Navigator Aries revoked its Calderbank offer | |
| Court of Appeal decided the appeal, apportioning liability 50:50 | |
| Costs submissions were made | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Apportionment of Liability
- Outcome: Liability was apportioned at 50:50.
- Category: Substantive
- Costs
- Outcome: The Court addressed the impact of a pre-trial offer to settle and a Calderbank offer on the costs orders.
- Category: Procedural
- Calderbank Offer
- Outcome: The court considered the weight to be given to a Calderbank offer in determining costs, even when the judgment obtained is only as favorable as the offer.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Apportionment of Liability
- Monetary Damages
- Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
- Apportionment of Liability for Collision
10. Practice Areas
- Admiralty Litigation
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Maritime
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The “Navigator Aries” | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2023] SGCA 20 | Singapore | Sets out the background facts for the dispute. |
| The “Osprey” | Not Available | Yes | [1967] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 76 | Not Available | Identifies three possible approaches to awarding costs in a collision action. |
| SBS Transit Ltd (formerly known as Singapore Bus Services Limited) v Koh Swee Ann | Not Available | Yes | [2004] 3 SLR(R) 365 | Singapore | Calderbank letters are useful tools for encouraging settlement and are complementary to the offer to settle regime under the Rules of Court. |
| Ong & Ong Pte Ltd v Fairview Developments Pte Ltd | Not Available | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 1285 | Singapore | The court is not bound to award costs in any particular manner in the face of a Calderbank offer, and may treat the offer as one factor to be considered in exercising its wide discretion as to costs. |
| Zhang Jinwei v Tradsurance Agency Pte Ltd and another | Singapore Magistrate Court | Yes | [2022] SGMC 58 | Singapore | Discusses the weight to be given to a Calderbank offer and factors to be considered. |
| Calderbank v Calderbank | Not Available | Yes | [1976] Fam 93 | Not Available | Discusses how litigants might be able to conduct negotiations without prejudice as to the merits of a matter, while reserving the possibility of referring to those negotiations should the question of costs come before the court. |
| Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd v Goel Adesh Kumar and another appeal | Not Available | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 1070 | Singapore | Element of compromise reflects a genuine and reasonable attempt to settle. |
| Man B&W Diesel S E Asia Pte Ltd and another v PT Bumi International Tankers and another appeal | Not Available | Yes | [2004] 3 SLR(R) 267 | Singapore | Element of compromise reflects a genuine and reasonable attempt to settle. |
| CKR Contract Services Pte Ltd v Asplenium Land Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 81 | Singapore | If the Calderbank offer’s precise ambit was uncertain, the offeree in that case ought to have sought clarification. |
| HLB Kidsons (a firm) v Lloyds Underwriters | Not Available | Yes | [2008] 3 Costs LR 427 | Not Available | In any litigation, particularly complex litigation, it is to be expected that the winning party will likely fail on one or more issues. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 | N/A |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Collision
- Apportionment of Liability
- Offer to Settle
- Calderbank Offer
- Costs
- Admiralty
- Inevitable Accident
- Bow Cushion Effect
- Underkeel Clearance
- Passage Planning
- Dredged Channel
- Navigation Track
15.2 Keywords
- Admiralty
- Collision
- Shipping
- Costs
- Apportionment
- Calderbank
- Settlement
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Costs | 95 |
| Admiralty and Maritime Law | 90 |
| Shipping Law | 90 |
| Civil Practice | 70 |
| Civil Litigation | 70 |
| Offers to Settle | 60 |
| Contract Law | 40 |
| Arbitration | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Admiralty
- Shipping
- Civil Procedure
- Costs
- Marine Collision