Symphony Shipbuilding SA v Sea Justice Ltd: Forum Non Conveniens & Duty of Disclosure in Admiralty Collision Case

In Symphony Shipbuilding SA v Sea Justice Ltd, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore addressed a dispute arising from a collision between the vessels 'A Symphony' and 'Sea Justice' off the coast of Qingdao, PRC. The Defendant applied for a stay of Singapore proceedings in favor of PRC proceedings, to set aside the warrant of arrest against its vessel, and for the return of security furnished. AR Nicholas Lai granted the stay application, dismissed the application to set aside the warrant of arrest, and ordered the return of the security to the Defendant, finding the PRC to be the more appropriate forum and the Plaintiff's non-disclosures immaterial.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Stay Application granted; application to set aside warrant of arrest dismissed; security to be returned to the Defendant.

1.3 Case Type

Admiralty

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court grants stay in favor of PRC proceedings due to collision in Chinese waters, dismissing claims of material non-disclosure.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Owner and/or Demise Charterer of the vessel A SYMPHONY (IMO No. 9249324)PlaintiffCorporationStay Application granted against PlaintiffLost
Symphony Shipbuilding SAPlaintiffCorporationStay Application granted against PlaintiffLost
Owner and/or Demise Charterer of the vessel SEA JUSTICE (IMO No. 9309514)DefendantCorporationStay Application granted in favor of DefendantWon
Sea Justice LtdDefendantCorporationStay Application granted in favor of DefendantWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Nicholas LaiAssistant RegistrarYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Liao YantingAsiaLegal LLC
Timothy TanAsiaLegal LLC
Gho Sze KeeAsiaLegal LLC
Loh Wai YueIncisive Law LLC
Tan Xue TingIncisive Law LLC
C SivahIncisive Law LLC

4. Facts

  1. A collision occurred between the 'A Symphony' and the 'Sea Justice' off the coast of Qingdao, PRC.
  2. The 'A Symphony' sustained substantial damage to its hull, cargo, and equipment.
  3. The collision led to a significant marine pollution incident.
  4. The Plaintiff filed ADM 61 in Singapore, claiming the collision was due to the Defendant's negligence.
  5. Legal proceedings were also commenced in Qingdao, PRC, and the Marshall Islands.
  6. The Defendant applied to the Qingdao Maritime Court to constitute a limitation fund.
  7. The Plaintiff registered its claims against the SJ Limitation Fund in the Qingdao Court.

5. Formal Citations

  1. The “Sea Justice”, Admiralty in Rem No 61 of 2021 (Summons No 4434 of 2022), [2023] SGHCR 24

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Collision between 'A Symphony' and 'Sea Justice' occurred.
Plaintiff filed ADM 61 against the Defendant in Singapore.
Defendant applied to the Qingdao Maritime Court to constitute a limitation fund.
Plaintiff commenced an action in personam against the Defendant in the Marshall Islands.
Defendant commenced a claim against the Plaintiff in Qingdao to determine collision liability.
Qingdao Court published notices calling for objections to the 187 Application.
Plaintiff's P&I Club commenced proceedings in the Qingdao Court to constitute a limitation fund.
Qingdao Court issued a civil ruling and approved the 187 Application.
Plaintiff and NEPIA applied to register its claims against the SJ Limitation Fund.
Qingdao Court approved the AS CLC Limitation Fund.
Plaintiff's application to register claims against the SJ Limitation Fund was granted.
Plaintiff and NEPIA jointly commenced an action against the Defendant in the Qingdao Court.
Defendant applied to the Qingdao Court for a worldwide behaviour preservation order against the Plaintiff.
ASI Application was dismissed by the Qingdao Court.
Plaintiff and the Defendant filed their evidence in respect of the Plaintiff’s Inter-Ship Claim and the Defendant’s Inter-Ship Claim.
Court heard and directed the Inter-Ship Claims to be consolidated.
Plaintiff’s and the Defendant’s lawyers conferred on the evidence tendered by the parties.
Plaintiff applied for a warrant of arrest against the 'Sea Justice'.
Plaintiff's application for a warrant of arrest was granted.
'Sea Justice' was arrested after entering Singapore port limits.
Letter of Undertaking issued by The Swedish Club as security.
'Sea Justice' was released following an agreement between the parties.
Payment into the Court of the SGD equivalent of US$ 6.5 million.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Orders made in SUM 4434.
Grounds of Decision issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Forum Non Conveniens
    • Outcome: The court found that the PRC was the more appropriate forum and granted a stay of the Singapore proceedings.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Multiplicity of proceedings
      • International comity
      • Submission to jurisdiction
  2. Material Non-Disclosure
    • Outcome: The court found that the non-disclosures were immaterial and dismissed the application to set aside the warrant of arrest.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Arrest of Vessel

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence
  • Maritime Lien

10. Practice Areas

  • Admiralty Litigation
  • Shipping Litigation
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Shipping

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Spiliada Maritime Corporation v CansulexHouse of LordsYes[1987] AC 460England and WalesCited for the two-stage test for granting a stay on the ground of forum non conveniens.
Best Soar Ltd v Praxis Energy Agents Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2018] 3 SLR 423SingaporeCited on the application of the Spiliada test.
Rappo, Tania v Accent Delight International Ltd and another and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2017] 2 SLR 265SingaporeCited on the application of the Spiliada test.
Rickshaw Investments Ltd v Nicolai Baron von UexkullHigh CourtYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 377SingaporeCited on the application of the Spiliada test.
The EleftheriaAdmiralty CourtYes[1969] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 237England and WalesCited for the Eleftheria factors relevant to deciding whether to grant a stay application on the ground of forum non conveniens.
Bunge SA and another v Indian BankHigh CourtYes[2015] SGHC 330SingaporeCited for the relevance of the Eleftheria factors in deciding whether to grant a stay application on the ground of forum non conveniens.
The “Reecon Wolf”High CourtYes[2012] 2 SLR 289SingaporeCited for the principle that the place where a tort was committed is prima facie the natural forum for that tortious claim.
JIO Minerals FZC and others v Mineral Enterprises LtdHigh CourtYes[2011] 1 SLR 391SingaporeCited for the principle that the place where a tort was committed is prima facie the natural forum for that tortious claim.
The WellamoNot AvailableYes[1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 229England and WalesCited regarding the convenience of witnesses.
EFT Holdings, Inc and another v Marinteknik Shipbuilders (S) Pte Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2014] 1 SLR 860SingaporeCited regarding the burden of proof when arguing differences in the application of COLREGS.
The “CF Crystal” and The “Sanchi”Court of First InstanceYes[2018] HKCFI 2474Hong KongCited for the proposition that multiplicity of proceedings should not be considered a weighty factor.
Shijiazhuang Iron & Steel Co Ltd & Ors v Hui Rong NAV Corp SA & OrsNot AvailableYes[2008] HKCU 1326Hong KongCited for the proposition that multiplicity of proceedings should not be considered a weighty factor.
CMA CGM SA v Ship Chou ShanFederal Court of AustraliaYes[2014] FCA 74(2014)AustraliaCited regarding whether making claims against a limitation fund constitutes submission to jurisdiction.
Poh Soon Kiat v Desert Palace Inc (trading as Caesars Palace)High CourtYes[2010] 1 SLR 1129SingaporeCited regarding the examination of an expert's premises and reasoning.
The "Vasiliy Golovnin”High CourtYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 994SingaporeCited regarding the duty to disclose all material facts when applying for a warrant of arrest.
The “Jeil Crystal”High CourtYes[2021] SGHC 292SingaporeCited regarding the public interest in discouraging abuse of procedure when setting aside a warrant of arrest.
Treasure Valley Group Ltd v Saputra Teddy and another (Ultramarine Holdings Ltd, intervener)High CourtYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 358SingaporeCited regarding whether the warrant of arrest was done in good faith.
The “Fierbinti”High CourtYes[1994] 3 SLR(R) 574SingaporeCited regarding the court's discretion in setting aside a warrant of arrest.
The “Damavand”High CourtYes[1993] 2 SLR(R) 136SingaporeCited regarding the test for materiality for non-disclosure.
The Eagle PrestigeHigh CourtYes[2010] 3 SLR 294SingaporeCited regarding the concerns of the court at the application stage of obtaining a warrant of arrest.
The “Putbus”Court of AppealYes[1969] P 136England and WalesCited regarding a shipowner not being compelled to put up further security in another country for the same collision claims.
Evergreen International SA v Volkswagen Group Singapore Pte Ltd and OthersHigh CourtYes[2003] 2 SLR(R) 457SingaporeCited regarding the right to claim limitation in any particular form belonging to the shipowner alone.
Volvox HollandiaNot AvailableYes[1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 361Not AvailableCited regarding it being wrong for a claimant to seek to usurp a shipowner’s choice of forum for his limitation action.
The Abidin DaverNot AvailableYes[1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 339Not AvailableCited regarding the concept of comity as a discretionary power for a judge to stay proceedings.
The FalstriaNot AvailableYes[1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 495Not AvailableCited regarding the essence of a limitation action.
The BowbelleNot AvailableYes[1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 532Not AvailableCited regarding the plaintiffs being able to enforce their rights by filing an appropriately worded caveat against arrest.
The Bramley MooreNot AvailableYes[1963] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 429Not AvailableCited regarding the principle underlying limitation of liability.
Pusan Newport Co Ltd v. Owners and/or demise charterers of the ships or vessels “Milano Bridge” and “CMA CGM Musca” and “CMA CGM Hydra”Court of AppealYes[2022] HKCA 157Hong KongCited regarding public policy considerations on comity.
The Owners of the Ship or Vessel Ming Galaxy v The Owners of the Ship or Vessel or Property Herceg NoviHigh CourtYes[1998] SGHC 303SingaporeCited regarding the merits of legislation not being justiciable before the court.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act 1961Singapore
Merchant Shipping Act 1995Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Forum Non Conveniens
  • Material Non-Disclosure
  • Stay Application
  • Warrant of Arrest
  • Limitation Fund
  • Collision
  • International Comity
  • ASI Application
  • Inter-Ship Claim
  • Maritime Lien

15.2 Keywords

  • Admiralty
  • Shipping
  • Collision
  • Forum Non Conveniens
  • Singapore
  • China
  • Maritime Law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Admiralty and Maritime Law95
Shipping Law90
Forum Non Conveniens80
Private International Law75
Jurisdiction60
Duty of disclosure50
Civil Practice40

16. Subjects

  • Admiralty
  • Shipping
  • Civil Procedure
  • Conflict of Laws