Vallianz Shipbuilding v ECO SPARK: Admiralty Jurisdiction & Definition of 'Ship'
In Vallianz Shipbuilding & Engineering Pte Ltd v Owner of the vessel “ECO SPARK”, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore addressed whether the “ECO SPARK”, a steel dumb barge converted into a floating fish farm, qualifies as a “ship” under s 2 of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act 1961. Vallianz Shipbuilding & Engineering Pte Ltd filed an admiralty claim against the ECO SPARK seeking S$1,642,363.62 for the conversion of the barge. The owner of the ECO SPARK, Aquaculture Centre of Excellence Pte Ltd, applied to strike out the claim, arguing that the ECO SPARK is not a “ship”. The court held that the ECO SPARK is a “ship” within the meaning of the Act and dismissed the application to strike out the claim and set aside the warrant of arrest. The court granted the defendant's application for a stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Defendant's application to strike out the claim and set aside the warrant of arrest is dismissed. Application for stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration is granted.
1.3 Case Type
Admiralty
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court determines if a floating fish farm converted from a barge is a 'ship' under admiralty law, addressing jurisdiction.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vallianz Shipbuilding & Engineering Pte Ltd | Claimant | Corporation | Claim not struck out | Partial | Henry Heng |
| Owner of the vessel “ECO SPARK” | Defendant | Corporation | Application dismissed except for stay of proceedings | Partial | Kenny Yap |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| S Mohan | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Henry Heng | Legal Solutions LLC |
| Kenny Yap | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
4. Facts
- Vallianz Shipbuilding contracted to convert a barge, WINBUILD 73, into a Special Service Floating Fish Farm named ECO SPARK.
- The contract price for the conversion was S$1,800,000.
- The ECO SPARK was to be constructed under the rules of Bureau Veritas and delivered to a Singapore farm site.
- Disputes arose between the parties regarding sums payable under the contract.
- Vallianz filed an admiralty claim in rem against the ECO SPARK, claiming S$1,642,363.62.
- The ECO SPARK was arrested pursuant to a warrant of arrest.
- The defendant applied to strike out the claim, arguing the ECO SPARK is not a 'ship' under the HCAJA.
5. Formal Citations
- Vallianz Shipbuilding & Engineering Pte Ltd v Owner of the vessel “ECO SPARK”, Admiralty in Rem No 20 of 2023 (Summons No 1070 of 2023), [2023] SGHC 353
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Defendant purchased barge “WINBUILD 73” | |
| Claimant and defendant entered into contract to convert barge into floating fish farm | |
| Parties entered into Addendum No. 1 to revise the delivery date | |
| Claimant tendered Notice of Readiness | |
| Vessel was launched in Batam, Indonesia | |
| Vessel was towed from Shipyard to Singapore | |
| Vessel was physically delivered to the defendant at the Farm Site | |
| Claimant filed admiralty originating claim in rem against the Vessel | |
| Warrant of arrest against the Vessel obtained and Vessel arrested | |
| Defendant filed Notice of Intention to Contest | |
| Defendant filed SUM 1070 | |
| Hearing for SUM 1070 | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Definition of 'Ship' under High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act
- Outcome: The court held that the ECO SPARK is a 'ship' within the meaning of s 2 of the HCAJA.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Meaning of vessel used in navigation
- Whether barge converted to floating fish farm is a ship
- Admiralty Jurisdiction
- Outcome: The court held that the admiralty jurisdiction of the court was properly invoked by the claimant.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Invocation of admiralty jurisdiction in rem
- Admiralty arrest of a ship
- Stay of Proceedings in Favor of Arbitration
- Outcome: The court granted the defendant’s application for a stay of ADM 20 in favour of arbitration, subject to the condition that the “ECO SPARK” is to remain under arrest and be retained as security for the satisfaction of any award that may be made in the arbitration between the claimant and defendant.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Striking out of admiralty claim
- Setting aside warrant of arrest
- Release of vessel
- Damages for wrongful arrest and detention
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Claim in respect of the construction, repair or equipment of a ship
10. Practice Areas
- Admiralty
- Commercial Litigation
- Arbitration
11. Industries
- Shipbuilding
- Aquaculture
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Merchants Marine Insurance Co Ltd v North of England Protection & Indemnity Association | English Court of Appeal | Yes | (1926) 26 Ll L Rep 201 | England | Cited for the comment by Scrutton LJ on the difficulty of defining a 'ship or vessel'. |
| The “Bunga Melati 5” | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 546 | Singapore | Cited for the principles regarding the standard of proof required to invoke admiralty jurisdiction in Singapore. |
| The “MARA” | High Court | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR(R) 31 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of giving a broad and liberal construction to statutory provisions conferring admiralty jurisdiction. |
| Guardian Offshore AU Pty Ltd v SAAB Seaeye Leopard 1702 Remotely Operated Vehicle Lately on Board the Ship ‘Offshore Guardian’ and another | Federal Court of Australia | Yes | [2021] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 201 | Australia | Cited for the approach of interpreting the definition of 'ship' liberally to facilitate in rem jurisdiction. |
| See Toh Siew Kee v Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Pte) Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 227 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of 'ship' under the Maritime Conventions Act 1911 and the interpretation of 'used in navigation'. |
| Steadman v Scofield | English High Court | Yes | [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 163 | England | Cited for the definition of 'used in navigation' as conveying the concept of transporting persons or property by water to an intended destination, but disagreed with by the Irish Supreme Court in The Von Rocks. |
| The Mac | English Court of Appeal | Yes | (1882) 7 PD 126 | England | Cited for the determination of whether a hopper barge constitutes a 'ship'. |
| Polpen Shipping Co Ltd v Commercial Union Assurance Co Ltd | English High Court | Yes | [1943] KB 161 | England | Cited for the determination of whether a flying boat is a 'ship or vessel' within the meaning of an insurance policy. |
| R v Carrick District Council, ex parte Prankerd | English High Court | Yes | [1999] QB 1119 | England | Cited for the distinction between 'used in navigation' and 'used for navigation'. |
| Perks v Clark (Inspector of Taxes) and other suits | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 431 | England | Cited for the finding that oil rigs were 'ships' as they were 'capable of, and used for, navigation'. |
| Michael v Musgrove (t/a YNYS RIBS) Sea Eagle | English High Court | Yes | [2011] EWHC 1438 (Admlty) | England | Cited for the determination of whether a rigid inflatable boat was a 'ship' under the Athens Convention. |
| The Environmental Agency v Gibbs and another | English High Court | Yes | [2016] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 69 | England | Cited for the consideration of whether houseboats constituted 'vessels'. |
| The “Von Rocks” | Irish Supreme Court | Yes | [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 198 | Ireland | Cited for the determination of whether a backhoe dredger was a 'ship'. |
| R v Saint John Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co | Federal Court of Canada | Yes | [1981] FCJ No 608 | Canada | Cited for the determination of whether a floating crane was a 'ship'. |
| R v “Star Luzon” (The) | British Columbia Supreme Court | Yes | [1983] BCJ No 2027 | Canada | Cited for the determination of whether a floating drydock was a 'vessel'. |
| Pollmann, Christian Joachim v Ye Xianrong | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 5 SLR 1111 | Singapore | Cited for the applicable principles relating to judicial notice. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act 1961 | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act 1965 | Singapore |
| International Arbitration Act 1994 | Singapore |
| Maritime Conventions Act 1911 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Admiralty Jurisdiction
- Ship
- Vessel
- Navigation
- Floating Fish Farm
- Barge
- Spud Legs
- Arrest
- In Rem
- Seaworthiness
15.2 Keywords
- admiralty jurisdiction
- ship
- vessel
- floating fish farm
- singapore
- construction
- arbitration
16. Subjects
- Admiralty
- Shipping
- Construction Law
- Contract Law
17. Areas of Law
- Admiralty Law
- Shipping Law
- Arbitration Law