VMax Marine v Singapore Salvage: Appeal on Salvage Contract & Costs Order Dispute

VMax Marine Pte Ltd appealed against Singapore Salvage Engineers Pte Ltd, concerning a dispute arising from a salvage master and consultancy services contract. The District Judge had previously dismissed VMax's claims and allowed SSE's counterclaim in part. VMax and SSE both appealed, and the High Court allowed VMax's appeal in part. Subsequently, VMax sought to vary the District Judge's costs order, which the High Court declined, finding no injustice in leaving the original order untouched.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal to vary the District Judge's costs order declined.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

VMax Marine appealed a costs order after partially winning its appeal against Singapore Salvage. The court considered if it could vary the costs order.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
VMax Marine Pte LtdAppellant, PlaintiffCorporationAppeal to vary the District Judge's costs order declinedLost
Singapore Salvage Engineers Pte LtdRespondent, DefendantCorporationAppeal to vary the District Judge's costs order declinedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Kwek Mean LuckJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Abirame SDennisMathiew
Deborah KohDennisMathiew
Gerard NicholasDennisMathiew
Justin NgDennisMathiew
Eoon ZizhenWen Zizhen
BenedictWen Zizhen
Tanjeetpal Singh KhairaOon & Bazul LLP

4. Facts

  1. VMax brought claims against SSE arising out of a contract for salvage master and consultancy services.
  2. SSE counterclaimed, alleging that VMax had breached the same contract.
  3. The District Judge dismissed all of VMax’s claims and allowed SSE’s counterclaim in part.
  4. VMax and SSE appealed against the DJ’s decision.
  5. The High Court dismissed DCA 41 but allowed DCA 40 in part.
  6. Parties were ordered to bear their own costs for the appeals, on an overall basis.
  7. VMax wrote to the Court, to say that the costs in DC 779 should be considered afresh given its partial success in DCA 40.

5. Formal Citations

  1. VMax Marine Pte Ltd v Singapore Salvage Engineers Pte Ltd and another appeal, District Court Appeal No 40 of 2023, [2024] SGHC 208

6. Timeline

DateEvent
District Court Suit No 779 of 2021 filed
District Court Appeal No 40 of 2023 filed
Oral judgment delivered on the merits and costs in HC/DCA 40/2023
VMax wrote to Court to ask that the costs order for the trial below be varied
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Appeals against costs order
    • Outcome: The court held that it retained the inherent jurisdiction to hear a matter consequential to its decision in the main appeal, which it had previously not heard, including the inherent jurisdiction to hear VMax’s appeal against the DJ’s Costs Order.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to file notice of appeal
      • Failure to raise issue in submissions
  2. Inherent jurisdiction
    • Outcome: The court held that it had inherent jurisdiction to hear a matter consequential to its decision in the main appeal, which it had previously not heard.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
  3. Functus officio
    • Outcome: The court held that it was not functus officio as to the merits and costs of DCA 40 because the court order on DCA 40 had not been passed and sealed.
    • Category: Jurisdictional

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Repayment of costs
  2. Fixed costs
  3. Payment for interlocutory applications

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Marine
  • Salvage

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
The “Luna” and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2021] 2 SLR 1054SingaporeCited for the principle that a party need not file an additional notice of appeal in respect of the costs decision or amend the original notice of appeal to reflect the costs appeal where a costs decision is rendered after a notice of appeal is filed, and the costs appeal rests on the outcome of the substantive appeal.
Qilin World Capital Ltd v CPIT Investments Ltd and another appealCourt of Appeal (Insolvency)Yes[2019] 1 SLR 1SingaporeCited for the principle that a party need not file an additional notice of appeal in respect of the costs decision or amend the original notice of appeal to reflect the costs appeal where a costs decision is rendered after a notice of appeal is filed, and the costs appeal rests on the outcome of the substantive appeal.
Beyonics Asia Pacific Ltd and others v Goh Chan Peng and anotherHigh Court (Insolvency)Yes[2020] 5 SLR 235SingaporeCited for the principle that a party need not file an additional notice of appeal in respect of the costs decision or amend the original notice of appeal to reflect the costs appeal where a costs decision is rendered after a notice of appeal is filed, and the costs appeal rests on the outcome of the substantive appeal.
Godfrey Gerald QC v UBS AG and othersHigh CourtYes[2004] 4 SLR(R) 411SingaporeCited for the principle that a court rendered functus officio has limited jurisdiction to make substantive amendments to its decision.
Retrospect Investment (S) Pte Ltd v Lateral Solutions Pte Ltd and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2020] 1 SLR 763SingaporeCited for the principle that a court rendered functus officio has limited jurisdiction to make substantive amendments to its decision.
Thu Aung Zaw v Ku Swee Boon (trading as Norb Creative Studio)High CourtYes[2018] 4 SLR 1260SingaporeCited for the principle that a court rendered functus officio has limited jurisdiction to make substantive amendments to its decision.
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 3563 v Wintree Investment Pte Ltd and others (Greatearth Corp Pte Ltd, third party)High CourtYes[2018] 5 SLR 412SingaporeCited for the principle that a court is usually made functus officio, by the perfection of the relevant court order.
In re L and another (Children) (Preliminary Finding: Power to Reverse)UK Supreme CourtYes[2013] UKSC 8United KingdomCited for the principle that an order of court is perfected when it is sealed by the court.
Re Harrison’s Share under a SettlementN/AYes[1955] 1 All ER 185England and WalesCited for the principle that an order pronounced by the judge can always be withdrawn, or altered or modified, by him until it is drawn up, passed and entered.
Ser Kim Koi v GTMS Construction Pte Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[2021] 1 SLR 1319SingaporeCited as an authority where the appellant had indicated that it would be appealing against the costs order below, prior to the disposition of the appeal as a whole.
Thomson Plaza (Pte) Ltd v Liquidators of Yaohan Department Store Singapore Pte Ltd (in liquidation)Court of AppealYes[2001] 2 SLR(R) 246SingaporeCited for the principle that a court has inherent jurisdiction to recall its decision and to hear further arguments so long as the order of court has not been perfected.
Naseer Ahmad Akhtar v Suresh Agarwal and anotherHigh CourtYes[2015] 5 SLR 1032SingaporeCited for the principle that the inherent jurisdiction of the court to recall and review its decision before the order of court is perfected, must be exercised judicially and not capriciously.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules Of Court 2014Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Functus officio
  • Inherent jurisdiction
  • Costs order
  • Notice of appeal
  • Salvage master
  • Consultancy services

15.2 Keywords

  • salvage
  • contract
  • costs
  • appeal
  • civil procedure
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Costs95
Appellate Practice80
Civil Litigation70
Civil Practice60
Jurisdiction50
Breach of Contract40
Contractual terms30
Arbitration30

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Contract Law
  • Shipping Law