COSCO Shipping v PT OKI Pulp: Jurisdiction in Limitation Action for Vessel-Jetty Contact

In COSCO Shipping Specialized Carriers Co, Ltd v PT OKI Pulp & Paper Mills and others, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore addressed a jurisdictional challenge in an admiralty limitation action. The case arose from a vessel, "LE LI," contacting a trestle bridge connecting a paper mill to an offshore jetty in Indonesia. COSCO Shipping, the vessel owner, initiated the action to limit its liability. PT OKI Pulp & Paper Mills, the alleged owner of the damaged jetty, contested the Singapore court's jurisdiction, arguing invalid service on COSCO Shipping Specialized Carriers (Europe) BV, the head charterer. Justice Mohan dismissed PT OKI Pulp & Paper Mills' application, finding valid service on COSCO Europe and no abuse of process.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Admiralty

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court addresses jurisdiction in a limitation action following a vessel's contact with a jetty, focusing on service validity.

1.7 Decision Date

21 May 2023

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
COSCO Shipping Specialized Carriers Co, Ltd	Claimant	Corporation	Application Dismissed	Won	Dedi Affandi bin Ahmad of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Toh Kian Sing of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Koh Xu Min Rebecca of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Li Kun Hang of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
PT OKI Pulp & Paper Mills	Defendant	Corporation	Application Dismissed	Lost	Leong Lu Yuan of CLASIS LLC Dawn Tan Si Jie of CLASIS LLC Teo Wei Lin Elizabeth of CLASIS LLC Chan Leng Sun of Chan Leng Sun LLC Chong Ik Wei of CLASIS LLC
COSCO Shipping Specialized Carriers (Europe) BV	Defendant	Corporation	Neutral	Neutral	Tan Wee Kong of JLex LLC Poh Ying Ying Joanna of JLex LLC
All other persons claiming or entitled to claim damage, loss, expense, indemnity arising out of contact between “LE LI” (IMO No. 9192674) and jetty/structure at Tanjung Tapa Pier on or about 31.05.22	Defendant	Other

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
S Mohan	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Dedi Affandi bin Ahmad	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Toh Kian Sing	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Koh Xu Min Rebecca	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Li Kun Hang	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Leong Lu Yuan	CLASIS LLC
Dawn Tan Si Jie	CLASIS LLC
Teo Wei Lin Elizabeth	CLASIS LLC
Chan Leng Sun	Chan Leng Sun LLC
Chong Ik Wei	CLASIS LLC
Tan Wee Kong	JLex LLC
Poh Ying Ying Joanna	JLex LLC

4. Facts

The vessel "LE LI" contacted a trestle bridge at Tanjung Tapa Pier in Indonesia.
PT OKI Pulp & Paper Mills claims ownership of the damaged trestle bridge/jetty.
COSCO Shipping commenced a limitation action to limit its liability.
COSCO Europe was named as a defendant in the limitation action.
OKI challenged the court's jurisdiction, arguing invalid service on COSCO Europe.
Arbitration proceedings are underway between COSCO Shipping and COSCO Europe.

5. Formal Citations

COSCO Shipping Specialized Carriers Co, Ltd v PT OKI Pulp & Paper Mills and others, Admiralty in Personam No 50 of 2022 (Summons No 4238 of 2022), [2023] SGHC 149

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2021-04-06	Head contract of affreightment signed
2021-04-06	Voyage charterparty signed
2022-05-31	Vessel contacted trestle bridge
2022-08-04	Limitation action commenced
2022-08-05	Originating claim served on COSCO Europe
2022-08-11	COSCO Europe filed notice of intention not to contest
2022-08-25	Application for limitation decree filed
2022-10-11	OKI filed notice of intention to contest
2022-10-12	Hearing of SUM 3219 adjourned
2023-04-17	Judgment reserved
2023-05-22	Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

Jurisdiction
- Outcome: The court found that it had jurisdiction over the limitation action due to valid service on one defendant and that defendant's submission to jurisdiction.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
  - Validity of service
  - Submission to jurisdiction
Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court found that the limitation action was not a plain and obvious case of abuse of process.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Fictitious claims
  - Ulterior purpose

8. Remedies Sought

Limitation Decree
Declaration that the Singapore courts have no jurisdiction
Removal of COSCO Europe as a defendant

9. Cause of Actions

Limitation of Liability
Breach of contract
Negligence

10. Practice Areas

Admiralty
Shipping
Civil Litigation

11. Industries

Shipping
Pulp and Paper

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
The Happy Fellow	English High Court	Yes	[1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 130	England	Cited to establish that a limitation action is a special proceeding to which all potential claimants are made parties.
Saipem SpA v Dredging VO2 BV and Geosite Surveys Ltd (The Volvox Hollandia)	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 361	England	Cited to support the principle that a limitation decree is generally 'good against the world'.
Shanghai Turbo Enterprises Ltd v Liu Ming	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] 1 SLR 779	Singapore	Cited to support the principle that service on Singapore solicitors constitutes service in Singapore.
N M Rothschild & Sons (S) Pte Ltd v Plaza Rakyat Sdn Bhd	High Court	Yes	[1995] 2 SLR(R) 565	Singapore	Cited to support the principle that a defendant submits to the court’s jurisdiction by virtue of his solicitors accepting service in Singapore subsequently.
Burgundy Global Exploration Corp v Transocean Offshore International Ventures Ltd and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 3 SLR 381	Singapore	Cited for the principle that service is the crucial act that engages the court’s jurisdiction over a foreign person.
Siemens AG v Holdrich Investment Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2010] 3 SLR 1007	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court begins with the location of the defendant when it decides whether it has jurisdiction over a dispute.
Caspian Basin Specialised Emergency Salvage Administration and another v Bouygues Offshore SA and others (No 4)	English High Court	Yes	[1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 507	England	Cited for the standard of review of the claims of limitation action defendants at the commencement of a limitation action by a shipowner.
The Falstria	N/A	Yes	[1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 495	N/A	Cited for the principle that a limitation action brought against several claimants cannot be stayed at the instance of only one of those claimants.
Chee Siok Chin and others v Minister for Home Affairs and another	N/A	Yes	[2006] 1 SLR(R) 582	Singapore	Cited for the categories of proceedings amounting to an abuse of process.
Gabriel Peter & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin and others	N/A	Yes	[1997] 3 SLR(R) 649	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the power to strike out proceedings should only be exercised in plain and obvious cases.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 33 Rule 36 of the Rules of Court 2021
Order 33 Rule 2(4) to O 33 r 2(7) of the Rules of Court 2021
Order 33 Rule 40(1)(b) of the Rules of Court 2021
Order 8 Rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2021
Order 7 of the Rules of Court 2021
Order 8 of the Rules of Court 2021
Order 7 Rule 2(1) of the Rules of Court 2021
Order 7 Rule 4(1) of the Rules of Court 2021
Order 7 Rule 2 of the Rules of Court 2021

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Merchant Shipping Act 1995	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Limitation action
Trestle bridge
Jurisdiction
Service of originating claim
Submission to jurisdiction
Abuse of process
Proper defendant
Maritime claim
Limitation decree

15.2 Keywords

Limitation action
Jurisdiction
Service
Admiralty
Shipping
Singapore
COSCO
OKI Pulp & Paper

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Admiralty and Maritime Law	90
Shipping	90
Jurisdiction	80
Civil Practice	60
Civil Litigation	60
Breach of Contract	30
Asset Recovery	30
Contract Law	30

16. Subjects

Admiralty
Shipping
Civil Procedure
Jurisdiction
Limitation of Liability