Golden Pacific Shipping v Arc Marine Engineering: Negligence & Bailment in Ship Repair

Golden Pacific Shipping & Holdings Pte Ltd, a ship owner, sued Arc Marine Engineering Pte Ltd in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore on 19 January 2024, for negligence and bailment related to allegedly deficient repair works on the vessel 'Bravely Loyalty'. The plaintiff claimed damages of US$3,144,785.21 due to rectification works, downtime, and loss of charter income. Justice Lee Seiu Kin dismissed the plaintiff's claim, finding that the defendant did not breach its duty of care and that the plaintiff failed to mitigate its losses.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's claim dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Ship owner Golden Pacific Shipping sues Arc Marine Engineering for negligent ship repairs. The court dismissed the claim, finding no breach of duty.

1.7 Decision Date

18 January 2024

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Golden Pacific Shipping & Holdings Pte Ltd	Plaintiff	Corporation	Claim Dismissed	Dismissed	Max Lim Zhi Ming, Yip Li Ming
Arc Marine Engineering Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Tay Yong Seng, Ho Pey Yann, Abdul Mateen bin Mohamed Nagib Bajerai

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Lee Seiu Kin	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Max Lim Zhi Ming	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Yip Li Ming	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Tay Yong Seng	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Ho Pey Yann	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Abdul Mateen bin Mohamed Nagib Bajerai	Allen & Gledhill LLP

4. Facts

Plaintiff chartered its vessel to Bravely International Pte Ltd under a bareboat charter.
The vessel suffered damage to its main engine while en route from Tabangao, Philippines to Singapore.
MSI Ship Management Service Pte Ltd contracted with the defendant to repair the main engine.
Plaintiff claimed the repair works were deficient after the vessel was redelivered.
There was no contractual relationship between the plaintiff and defendant.
Plaintiff brought the action in tort and bailment against the defendant.
The main factual dispute centered on whether the defendant had left an orifice plug or blank plug inside the free-end of the Replacement crankshaft.

5. Formal Citations

Golden Pacific Shipping & Holdings Pte Ltd v Arc Marine Engineering Pte Ltd, Suit No 1041 of 2020, [2024] SGHC 15

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2017-06-09	Plaintiff chartered the Vessel to Bravely International Pte Ltd under a bareboat charter.
2017-09-19	Vessel delivered into Bravely’s service.
2019-04-15	Vessel suffered damage to her main engine en route from Tabangao, Philippines to Singapore.
2019-04-22	MSI confirmed the appointment of the defendant for the scope of repair works quoted.
2019-04-23	Vessel arrived at the Singapore Anchorage for the repairs to be executed.
2019-04-26	Defendant commenced repairs on the Vessel and its Main Engine.
2019-07-13	Vessel shifted to the Offshore Marine Centre Repair Berth of ST Marine Tuas Shipyard, where the repairs continued.
2019-07-10	Defendants executed crankshaft renewal.
2019-07-12	Defendants executed crankshaft renewal.
2019-07-16	Torsional vibration damper fitted to the Replacement Crankshaft.
2019-08-09	First Sea Trial conducted.
2019-08-10	Second Sea Trial conducted.
2019-08-16	Third Sea Trial conducted.
2019-08-20	Defendant and its subcontractors completed the repair works.
2019-08-21	MSI acknowledged that all relevant repairs had been completed.
2019-08-31	Bravely redelivered the Vessel to the plaintiff.
2019-09-12	Metalock Engineering (Qingdao) Ltd inspected the Main Engine crankpin bearings.
2019-09-16	Metalock Engineering (Qingdao) Ltd inspected the Main Engine crankpin bearings.
2019-09-17	Metalock produced a service report.
2019-09-26	Plaintiff entered into a bareboat charter of the Vessel with Joint Merchants Corporation Limited.
2019-09-30	Vessel was delivered to JMC.
2019-11-27	Vessel commenced its voyage to Vietnam, and then to Yuanye Shipyard in China for the rectification works.
2019-12-09	Engine-driven lubricating oil pump failed.
2019-12-16	Vessel arrived at Zhoushan.
2019-12-27	Vessel entered Yuanye Shipyard.
2020-01-20	Aqualis Braemar produced a report on the damage to the Main Engine.
2020-03-09	Rectification works were carried out by Dalian Shunzhou.
2020-03-14	Trade-wind Marine Surveyors & Consultants Ltd carried out a condition survey of the Main Engine.
2020-03-15	Trade-wind Marine Surveyors & Consultants Ltd carried out a condition survey of the Main Engine.
2020-03-17	Geislinger produced a report.
2020-03-24	Aqualis Braemar produced a second report on the damage to the Main Engine.
2020-04-07	Rectification works were carried out by Dalian Shunzhou.
2020-04-15	Trade-wind issued a report.
2020-04-27	Vessel left Yuanye Shipyard, upon JMC’s payment of the rectification costs to Dalian Shunzhou.
2020-10-29	Plaintiff commenced the present suit against the defendant in negligence.
2023-03-02	Mr Singh and Mr Wilson held an experts’ caucus to discuss the various technical factual issues that are in dispute.
2023-03-11	Joint memorandum dated setting out areas of agreement and disagreement for each of the issues.
2023-04-11	Trial began.
2023-04-12	Trial.
2023-04-13	Trial.
2023-04-14	Trial.
2023-04-26	Trial.
2023-04-27	Trial.
2023-04-28	Trial.
2023-07-28	Judgment reserved.
2024-01-19	Judgment.

7. Legal Issues

Duty of Care in Negligence
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care in tort.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100
  - [2005] 4 SLR(R) 417
  - [2006] 3 SLR(R) 769
  - [2004] 2 SLR(R) 300
Duty of Care in Bailment
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant did not owe the plaintiff a duty of care in bailment.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2005] 2 SLR(R) 744
  - [2010] QB 1
  - [1961] 1 QB 106
  - (1956) 4 DLR (2d) 566
  - (1961) 28 DLR (2d) 295
  - [2012] SGHC 135
Breach of Duty of Care
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant did not breach its duty of care in negligence.
- Category: Substantive
Mitigation of Losses
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff failed to mitigate its losses.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2022] SGHC 10
  - [2017] SGHC 8
Damages
- Outcome: The court considered the extent of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff if the defendant was liable in negligence.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2006] 2 SLR(R) 195
  - [2017] SGHC 198

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages
Indemnity
Interest
Costs

9. Cause of Actions

Negligence
Bailment

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Shipping Litigation

11. Industries

Shipping

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 4 SLR(R) 100	Singapore	Cited for the test for the imposition of a duty of care in negligence.
Sunny Metal & Engineering Pte Ltd v Ng Khim Ming Eric	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR(R) 853	Singapore	Cited in relation to factual foreseeability.
Jet Holding Ltd and others v Cooper Cameron (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another	High Court	Yes	[2005] 4 SLR(R) 417	Singapore	Cited as an analogous case where a duty of care was found in a repair context.
Jet Holding Ltd and others v Cooper Cameron (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another and other appeals	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2006] 3 SLR(R) 769	Singapore	Cited as an analogous case where a duty of care was found in a repair context.
Man B&W Diesel S E Asia Pte Ltd and another v PT Bumi International Tankers and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2004] 2 SLR(R) 300	Singapore	Cited as an analogous case where a duty of care was not found due to contractual arrangements.
NTUC Foodfare Co-operative Ltd v SIA Engineering Co Ltd and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] 2 SLR 588	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the nature of the loss is immaterial to the duty of care analysis after Spandeck.
Animal Concerns Research & Education Society v Tan Boon Kwee	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] 2 SLR 146	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the precise classification of the loss is immaterial.
ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 1 SLR 918	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the precise classification of the loss is immaterial.
Anwar Patrick Adrian and another v Ng Chong & Hue LLC and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 3 SLR 761	Singapore	Cited for proximity factors such as knowledge of the risk of harm and vulnerability of the plaintiff.
The “Sunrise Crane”	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2004] 4 SLR(R) 715	Singapore	Cited to distinguish PT Bumi (CA) on the basis of pure economic loss.
Pacific Associates Inc and another v Baxter and others	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1990] 1 QB 993	England and Wales	Cited for the policy consideration of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in contracts.
Techking Enterprise Ltd and another v JFE Consolidators Pte Ltd and another	High Court	Yes	[2005] 2 SLR(R) 744	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a sub-bailee is generally in the same position as a bailee with respect to caring for the original bailor’s goods.
Yearworth and others v North Bristol NHS Trust	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] QB 1	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that to establish bailment, the bailee must have exclusive possession over the chattel.
Midland Silicones Ltd v Scruttons Ltd	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1961] 1 QB 106	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that exclusive possession is a necessary requirement to establish bailment.
The Queen v Halifax Shipyards Ltd	Canadian courts	Yes	(1956) 4 DLR (2d) 566	Canada	Cited for the principle that it is essential to there being a bailment of a chattel that the bailee should have possession of it which connotes delivery of its possession by the bailor to the bailee.
Coast Crane Co Ltd v Dominion Bridge Co Ltd et al British Columbia Power Com’n v E.B. Investmenets Ltd et al	Canadian courts	Yes	(1961) 28 DLR (2d) 295	Canada	Cited for the principle that the plaintiff must mean and show that the constructive possession to which counsel referred was in fact exclusive possession.
Zweite Ms “Philippa Schulte” Shipping GmbH & Co KG & another v PSA Corp Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2012] SGHC 135	Singapore	Cited for the principle that for a bailment relationship to arise, the chattel in question must have been in the possession of the bailee, who has a high degree of control over the chattel to the exclusion of at least the bailor.
The “Chem Orchid”	High Court	Yes	[2015] 2 SLR 1020	Singapore	Cited for the nature of a bareboat charter.
The “Wilson Ruby” and another action	High Court	Yes	[1998] 1 SLR(R) 932	Singapore	Cited to argue that a repairer may still be found to have possession for the purposes of founding bailment, even though the crew remained onboard.
The “Ruapehu”	Court of Appeal	Yes	(1925) 21 Ll L Rep 310	England and Wales	Cited to argue that a repairer may still be found to have possession for the purposes of founding bailment, even though the crew remained onboard.
Pilgrim Private Debt Fund v Asian Appraisal Company Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2022] SGHC 10	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a plaintiff owes a duty to mitigate in respect of a claim in tort.
Cristian Priwisata Yacob and another v Wibowo Boediono and another and another suit	High Court	Yes	[2017] SGHC 8	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the duty to mitigate arises in respect of both claims in tort and contract.
Singapore Telecommunications Ltd v Starhub Cable Vision Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2006] 2 SLR(R) 195	Singapore	Cited for the test for remoteness of damage.
Pan-United Shipping Pte Ltd v Cummins Sales and Service Singapore Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2017] SGHC 198	Singapore	Cited for the test for remoteness of damage.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Civil Law Act	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Bareboat Charter
Main Engine
Torsional Vibration Damper
Orifice Plug
Blank Plug
Crankshaft
Defective Works
Downtime
Mitigation of Losses

15.2 Keywords

Shipping
Negligence
Bailment
Ship Repair
Marine Engineering
Tort
Contract

16. Subjects

Shipping Law
Tort Law
Contract Law
Marine Engineering

17. Areas of Law

Tort
Negligence
Bailment
Shipping Law
Contract Law