The "Sea Justice": Collision Dispute, Forum Non Conveniens, and Admiralty Jurisdiction

In the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, Kristy Tan JC presided over appeals concerning a collision between the vessels "A Symphony" and "Sea Justice". The owner of "A Symphony" (Plaintiff) commenced an admiralty action in rem in Singapore against the owner of "Sea Justice" (Defendant), seeking damages for losses arising from the collision. The Defendant applied for a stay of the Singapore action based on forum non conveniens, arguing that proceedings in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) were more appropriate. The Assistant Registrar granted the stay and ordered the return of security provided by the Defendant but declined to set aside the arrest of the "Sea Justice". Both parties appealed. The court dismissed both appeals, ordering the security to be returned, upholding the decision not to set aside the arrest, and affirming the order for the Plaintiff to pay a portion of the Defendant's expert fees.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeals dismissed. Security to be returned to Defendant; arrest of vessel not set aside; Plaintiff to pay expert fees.

1.3 Case Type

Admiralty

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Collision case involving vessels "A Symphony" and "Sea Justice". Singapore court addresses forum non conveniens and security retention after stay.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
THE OWNER AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERER OF THE VESSEL “A SYMPHONY”Plaintiff, RespondentOtherAppeal DismissedLost
THE OWNER AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERER OF THE VESSEL “SEA JUSTICE”Defendant, AppellantOtherAppeal DismissedNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Kristy TanJudicial Commissioner of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Liao YantingAsia Legal LLC
Timothy TanAsia Legal LLC
Gho Sze KeeAsia Legal LLC
Loh Wai YueIncisive Law LLC
John SeowIncisive Law LLC
Kunal MirpuriIncisive Law LLC
Gerry ZhangIncisive Law LLC

4. Facts

  1. A collision occurred between the "A Symphony" and the "Sea Justice" off the port of Qingdao, PRC.
  2. The owner of the "Sea Justice" constituted a limitation fund for maritime claims in the Qingdao Maritime Court (QMC).
  3. The owner of the "A Symphony" commenced an admiralty action in rem in Singapore against the "Sea Justice".
  4. The "Sea Justice" was arrested in Singapore waters.
  5. The Defendant provided security for the release of the "Sea Justice".
  6. The Defendant applied for a stay of the Singapore action on the grounds of forum non conveniens.
  7. The Plaintiff had registered claims against the SJ Limitation Fund.

5. Formal Citations

  1. The “Sea Justice”, Admiralty in Rem No 61 of 2021 (Registrar’s Appeals Nos 246 and 247 of 2023), [2024] SGHC 37

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Collision between "A Symphony" and "Sea Justice" occurred.
Plaintiff filed a writ of summons in Singapore to commence ADM 61.
Defendant applied to the QMC in the PRC 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 the QMC to determine collision liability.
QMC published notices calling for objections to the SJ Limitation Fund Application.
Plaintiff's P&I club commenced proceedings in the QMC to constitute a limitation fund for oil pollution damage.
QMC issued a Civil Ruling approving the SJ Limitation Fund Application.
Defendant constituted the limitation fund by paying RMB39,536,501 into the QMC.
Plaintiff applied to register its claims against the SJ Limitation Fund.
QMC approved the AS CLC Limitation Fund.
QMC granted the Plaintiff’s Application for Registration of Claim against SJ Limitation Fund.
Defendant applied to dismiss the Marshall Islands proceedings.
Plaintiff and NEPIA jointly commenced an action against the Defendant in the QMC.
Defendant applied to the QMC for a worldwide behaviour preservation order against the Plaintiff.
QMC dismissed the Defendant’s Chinese ASI Application.
Marshall Islands High Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s action.
Plaintiff and the Defendant filed their evidence in respect of the Inter-Ship Claims in the QMC.
QMC heard and directed the Inter-Ship Claims to be consolidated.
Writ of summons was renewed for 12 months.
Parties jointly confirmed in writing to the QMC the authenticity of the evidence.
Plaintiff applied for a warrant of arrest against the “Sea Justice”.
“Sea Justice” was arrested after entering Singapore waters.
Defendant entered an appearance in ADM 61.
Plaintiff and the Defendant reached an agreement for the Defendant to provide security.
Following the Defendant’s provision of the SG Security, the “Sea Justice” was released from arrest.
Defendant filed SUM 4434 to apply for orders.
Hearing of RA 246 and RA 247.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Forum Non Conveniens
    • Outcome: The court upheld the Assistant Registrar's decision to stay the Singapore action on the grounds of forum non conveniens in favor of proceedings in the PRC.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1987] AC 460
  2. Retention of Security
    • Outcome: The court ordered the return of the security provided by the Defendant, rejecting the Plaintiff's argument for a conditional stay or retention of security.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2017] 5 SLR 934
  3. Setting Aside Arrest
    • Outcome: The court upheld the Assistant Registrar's decision not to set aside the arrest of the "Sea Justice", finding that the non-disclosures by the Plaintiff were immaterial.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Material Non-Disclosure
    • Related Cases:
      • [2003] 3 SLR(R) 362
      • [2008] 4 SLR(R) 994
  4. Expert Witness Fees
    • Outcome: The court upheld the Assistant Registrar's decision regarding the disbursements allowed for the Defendant's Chinese law expert's fees.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2022] 3 SLR 174
      • [2018] 1 SLR 180
  5. Limitation of Liability
    • Outcome: The court considered the different limitation regimes in Singapore and the PRC in the context of forum non conveniens and the retention of security.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Return of Security
  3. Setting Aside Arrest

9. Cause of Actions

  • Damages for Collision
  • Indemnification from Loss

10. Practice Areas

  • Admiralty Litigation
  • Shipping Litigation
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Shipping

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
The “Sea Justice”High CourtNo[2023] SGHCR 24SingaporeSets out the grounds of decision of the Assistant Registrar regarding the forum non conveniens stay, return of security, and setting aside the arrest.
Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex LtdHouse of LordsNo[1987] AC 460United KingdomCited for the test of forum non conveniens.
The “Reecon Wolf”High CourtYes[2012] 2 SLR 289SingaporeCited for the principle that the existence of different limitation regimes is not an advantage under the second stage of the Spiliada test given international comity.
Evergreen International SA v Volkswagen Group Singapore Pte Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[2004] 2 SLR(R) 457SingaporeCited for the principle that accepting the Plaintiff’s argument would force the Defendant to potentially set up a limitation fund in Singapore, contrary to its right to claim limitation in its choice of forum.
The “Putbus”Probate, Divorce and Admiralty DivisionNo[1969] P 136United KingdomCited for the proposition that a shipowner, having constituted a limitation fund to answer collision claims, should not be compelled to put up further security in another country for the same claims.
CMA CGM SA and Another v The Ship Chou Shan and AnotherFederal Court of AustraliaNo[2014] FCAFC 90AustraliaDiscusses the 1996 Protocol and the limits of liability under the 1976 Convention.
The Rena KQueen's Bench DivisionNo[1979] QB 377United KingdomConcerns mandatory stays in favour of foreign arbitration proceedings and the retention of security.
The “ICL Raja Mahendra”High CourtYes[1998] 2 SLR(R) 922SingaporeCited for the principle that the Singapore court should not order the arrest of a vessel, retention of that arrested vessel, or retention of security furnished for the release of that vessel, for the purpose of securing a foreign judgment or award.
The “Eurohope”High CourtYes[2017] 5 SLR 934SingaporeCited for the principle that the Singapore courts will not order security obtained under an arrest to be retained to satisfy a judgment given in foreign court proceedings.
Caltex Singapore Pte. Ltd. and others v BP Shipping Ltd.High CourtNo[1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 286United KingdomConcerns a temporary stay for issues of quantum to be determined in the foreign natural forum.
The “Herceg Novi” and “Ming Galaxy”Court of AppealNo[1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 454United KingdomConcerns a collision in Singapore waters and the application of the 1957 Convention versus the 1976 Convention.
The “Herceg Novi” and “Ming Galaxy”Queen's Bench DivisionNo[1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 167United KingdomConcerns a collision in Singapore waters and the application of the 1957 Convention versus the 1976 Convention.
Pusan Newport Co Ltd v The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ships or Vessels “Milano Bridge” and “CMA CGM Musca” and “CMA CGM Hydra”Court of AppealNo[2022] HKCA 157Hong KongDiscusses the diversity in the limitation regimes implemented across the world.
Rotary Engineering Ltd and others v Kioumji & Eslim Law Firm and another and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2017] 1 SLR 907SingaporeConcerns the lifting of a forum non conveniens stay.
The Golden TraderAdmiralty CourtNo[1974] 3 WLR 16United KingdomExplains the usual consequence when an action is stayed is that security provided in the action is released.
Front Carriers Ltd v Atlantic & Orient Shipping CorpHigh CourtYes[2006] 3 SLR(R) 854SingaporeConcerns the enactment of s 7(1) of the IAA and the Rena K test.
The “Volvox Hollandia”Admiralty CourtYes[1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 361United KingdomConcerns the right to claim limitation by action or defence and/or counterclaim.
The “Happy Fellow”Admiralty CourtYes[1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 130United KingdomConcerns the shipowner’s right in a limitation action is to have all claims scaled down to their proportionate share of the limited fund.
The “Rainbow Spring”High CourtYes[2003] 3 SLR(R) 362SingaporeCited for the principle that non-disclosure of material facts is an independent ground for setting aside an arrest.
The “Vasiliy Golovnin”High CourtYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 994SingaporeCited for the test of materiality in non-disclosure cases.
The “Damavand”High CourtYes[1993] 2 SLR(R) 136SingaporeCited for the test of materiality in non-disclosure cases.
The “Eagle Prestige”High CourtYes[2010] 3 SLR 294SingaporeCited for the principle that the court is concerned with disclosure of material facts which are germane to considerations of jurisdiction in rem and show that the application does not constitute an abuse of the arrest process.
The “Kherson”Admiralty CourtYes[1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 261United KingdomCited for the principle that the existence of foreign proceedings in respect of the same claim brought in the local forum has been held to be a material fact that should be disclosed.
The “Fierbinti”High CourtYes[1994] 3 SLR(R) 574SingaporeCited for the principle that even where there has been material non-disclosure, the court retains an overriding discretion whether or not to set aside the arrest.
Treasure Valley Group Ltd v Saputra Teddy and another (Ultramarine Holdings Ltd, intervener)High CourtYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 358SingaporeCited for the principle that where non-disclosure was deliberate, the court would exercise its discretion not to set aside the arrest only in a special case.
The “Nordglimt”Admiralty CourtNo[1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 470United KingdomConcerns a case of misstatement rather than non-disclosure.
Kiri Industries Ltd v Senda International Capital Ltd and anotherSingapore International Commercial CourtYes[2022] 3 SLR 174SingaporeCited for the principle that expert witness fees are generally recoverable as long as they are reasonably incurred.
Centre for Laser and Aesthetic Medicine Pte Ltd v GPK Clinic (Orchard) Pte Ltd and others and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2018] 1 SLR 180SingaporeCited for the principle that the fact that an expert’s views were ultimately not accepted in full by the court does not mean that the costs of engaging the expert were unreasonably incurred.
Tan Boon Heng v Lau Pang Cheng DavidCourt of AppealYes[2013] 4 SLR 718SingaporeCited for the principle that due weight must be given to the decision of the trial judge.
The “Blue Fruit”Court of AppealYes[1979–1980] SLR(R) 238SingaporeDemonstrates that it is not considered just for a party to be doubly secured.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act 1961Singapore
Merchant Shipping Act 1995Singapore
Arbitration Act 1975United Kingdom
Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982United Kingdom

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Forum Non Conveniens
  • Admiralty Action In Rem
  • Limitation Fund
  • Security
  • Arrest of Vessel
  • Collision
  • International Comity
  • Material Non-Disclosure
  • Expert Witness Fees
  • SG Security
  • SJ Limitation Fund
  • QMC
  • ASI Dismissal Ruling

15.2 Keywords

  • Admiralty
  • Shipping
  • Collision
  • Forum Non Conveniens
  • Security
  • Arrest
  • Singapore
  • China
  • Limitation of Liability

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Admiralty and Maritime Law95
Admiralty Jurisdiction and Arrest95
Shipping Law90
Natural forum70
Private International Law60
Civil Procedure50
Arbitration40
Costs30
Contract Law20

16. Subjects

  • Admiralty
  • Shipping
  • Civil Procedure
  • Conflict of Laws