2023 Admiralty Live Lecture PDF

Corporate & Commercial Practice Admiralty Law & Practice 2023 Live Lecture – 1 Intellectual Property Office of Singapore Outline Admiralty Jurisdiction - S 3(1) High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act Common maritime claims - statutory & maritime liens Exercise of Ad...

Corporate & Commercial Practice Admiralty Law & Practice 2023 Live Lecture – 1 Intellectual Property Office of Singapore Outline Admiralty Jurisdiction - S 3(1) High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act Common maritime claims - statutory & maritime liens Exercise of Admiralty Jurisdiction - S 4 High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act Security Challenging the Arrest Mock Exam Questions Admiralty Jurisdiction S 3(1)(a) - (r), High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act common ones : - (c) ship mortgage; - (d) damage done by a ship; - (f) loss of life / personal injury; - (g) loss / damage to goods carried in a ship; - (h) claim arising out of any agreement for carriage of goods / use or hire of a ship; - (l) goods / materials supplied for ship's operation / maintenance; - (m) ship repairs; - (n) crew wages; - (o) agent’s disbursements Statutory / Maritime liens Statutory lien : how is it created? effect? T/B? ownership change? Maritime liens : - common ones (salvage; collision damage; Master / crew wages) - how is it created? effect? Possessory lien (repairer’s lien) Exercise of Admiralty Jurisdiction S 4 High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act S 4(2), 4(3) - the ship in question : statutory or maritime lien? S 4(4) read with 3(1)(d) - (q) - 4(4)(a) claim arises in connection with a ship; - 4(4)(b) at the time the cause of action arose, was the person who would be liable in personam ("relevant person") the owner or charterer or person in possession or control of the ship; - an action may be brought against: 4(4)(c) that ship, if at the time the action is brought, the relevant person is the beneficial owner or demise charterer of that ship; OR 4(4)(d) any other ship beneficially owned by the relevant person at the time the action is brought. Mock Question Cargo carried on the ship MABEL owned by Mabel Shipping Ltd. Cargo damaged in Jan. Cargo owners wish to arrest the ship MABEL in Sep. a. In Sep, MABEL is still owned by Mabel Shipping Ltd. b. MABEL is sold to Helen Shipping Ltd, and re-named HELEN in July. c. same as b. but Mabel Shipping Ltd owns another ship, MANDY. d. same as b. but Mabel Shipping Ltd is the demise charterers of the ship, MAGGIE. The Bunga Melati 5 5 step test: a. prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the jurisdictional facts under the limb it is relying on in s3(1)(d) to (q) exist; and show an arguable case that its claim is of the type or nature required by the relevant statutory provision (“step 1”); b. prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the claim arises in connection with a ship (“step 2”); c. identify, without having to show in argument, the person who would be liable on the claim in an action in personam (“step 3”) The Bunga Melati 5 d. prove on the balance of probabilities, that the relevant person was, when the cause of action arose, the owner of charterer of, or in possession or in control of, the ship (“step 4”); and e. prove on the balance of probabilities, that the relevant person was, at the time when the action was brought: (i) the beneficial owners of the offending ship as respects all the shares in it or the charterer of that ship under a demise charter; or (ii) the beneficial owners of the sister ship as respects all the shares in it (“step 5”). Security demand & Breakdown Reasonably best arguable case, plus interest and costs (The Moschanthy) Quantification with explanation (The H156 - Prompt response, The Evpo Agsa) Claim amount or Valuation of the ship, care in selecting target vessel (The Banco principle) Acceptable forms of security Bank guarantee from a 1st Class Singapore bank Letter of Undertaking from a reputable P&I Club or H&M underwriter (The Arcadia Spirit, The Arktis Fighter) : What is a reputable institution? Payment into Court Bail bond (O 33 r 16) Solicitors' letter of undertaking Disputes over security issues Quantum. Disputes over wording and the sufficiency of the guarantor are less common. Moderation of security quantum (The Moschanthy) Reasonableness of the wording (The Benja Bhum); Competent Court? Court's jurisdiction to set the amount of security Provision of security under protest (The Evmar : wrongful continued detention) and application to Court for release/wrongful detention. Challenging the Arrest Dispute as to jurisdiction (O 9 r 7 &/or Sections 3 & 4 of the Act). (The Eurohope) The Bunga Melati 5 (para 112 - what is required of the Plaintiff) Non-disclosure (The Eagle Prestige ‘plausible defences’ v ‘material facts’ aka knockout blows, The Vasiliy Golovnin ‘prior court proceedings for the same claim’, Xin Chang Shu ‘agent or principal’ & The Ocean Winner ‘restructuring orders in play’) Striking out of the action (O 9 r 16: The Bunga Melati 5 & The STX Mumbai) Arrest to enforce a settlement (The Dilmun Fulmar) Test for wrongful arrest (The Kiku Pacific; The Vasiliy Golovnin) Mock Exam Questions 1. On 15th August 2023, at 1400 hours local time, at the Singapore Straits, a serious collision occurred between a tanker, MT KESPAR, and a bulk carrier, MV BERNT LEANO, with both vessels equally to blame. Both MT KESPAR and MV BERNT LEANO suffered serious damage. MT KESPAR is owned by M/s King Powder Inc, which is a 1-ship owning company and MT KESPAR is bareboat chartered to M/s Brendon Rodder SA, and is part of a fleet managed by M/s Foxes Shipmanagement Inc. MV BERNT LEANO, had a cargo of soya bean meal, which was damaged by the collision. MV BERNT LEANO is owned by M/s Le Gooners Inc. Mock Exam Questions a. The owners of the cargo of soya bean meal onboard MV BERNT LEANO want to obtain security for their cargo claim, quantified at US$5.0 million. The cargo owners have found out that another tanker, MT VARDEE, which is part of the fleet managed by M/s Foxes Shipmanagement Inc but owned by another 1 ship owning company, will be calling into Singapore for bunkering next week. b. M/s Brendon Rodder SA has another bareboat chartered tanker, MT MADDISSON. Further, MT MADDISSON will also be calling into Singapore for bunkering next week. Mock Exam Questions c. The cargo owners received an email message from M/s Fillberth Side P&I Club, which is a P & I Club in financial difficulties, covering the MT KESPAR interests. The Club has proposed a Club letter of undertaking as security for the cargo claim. The wording of the proposed Club letter of undertaking answers to a final judgment of the English Courts. Mock Exam Questions 1. Which of the statement below about Cargo’s claim against Bernt Leano is false? A) Cargo’s claim satisfies Section 3(1)(g) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (“HCAJA”). B) Cargo’s claim does not arise in connection with a ship, Bernt Leano, and therefore does not satisfy Section 4(4)(a) of the HCAJA. C) Cargo’s claim satisfies Section 4(4)(b) of the HCAJA as the person would be liable on the claim in an action is personam is Le Gooners, which is the owner of MV Bernt Leano, at the time the cause of action arose. D) Cargo’s claim satisfies Section 4(4)(c) of the HCAJA as the person that would be liable on the claim in an action is personam is Le Gooners, which is the owner of the ship at the time when the action is brought. Mock Exam Questions 2. Which of the statement below relating to Bernt Leano’s claim against Kespar, is true? A) Bernt Leano has a valid in rem claim, with a maritime lien, against Kespar. B) Bernt Leano also has a valid in rem claim against Maddisson because Maddisson is bareboat chartered by Brendan Rodder. C) Bernt Leano does not have a valid in rem claim against Kespar because Bernt Leano is unable to satisfy Section 3(1)(d) of the HCAJA; D) Bernt Leano does not have a valid in rem claim against Kespar because it is not able to satisfy Section 4(4) of the HCAJA. Mock Exam Questions 3. Assuming that Bernt Leano has a valid in rem claim, which of the statement below reflects a reasonable demand for security in exchange for the release of Kespar after her arrest by Bernt Leano? A) A demand that security be provided strictly in the form of a bail bond only. B) A demand that security be provided strictly by a payment into court. C) A demand that security be provided for an amount that would cover only the quantum of Bernt Leano’s reasonably best arguable case. D) A demand that security be provided to cover Bernt Leano’s full claim, interest over 3 years and the costs of prosecuting the action. Mock Exam Questions 4. Assuming Cargo waited a while before taking action against Bernt Leano. Bernt Leano has since been sold in the interim and the new owners are Le Blues Inc but has not changed name. Cargo arrested Bernt Leano and Le Blues is now considering mounting a claim for damages for wrongful arrest and has asked you for advice on the merits of such a claim. Which advice below is correct? A) Cargo’s warrant of arrest may be set aside with damages with damages for wrongful arrest if Cargo knew that Bernt Leano was owned by Le Blues at the time of arrest, and did not disclose it at the time when the warrant of arrest was applied for. (Note: maritime lien does not attach to the carrying ship, Bernt Leano) B) Le Blues will not be entitled to damages for wrongful arrest even if it can show that Cargo acted with malice when it arrested Bernt Leano. C) Damages for wrongful arrest may be awarded as long as the warrant of arrest is set aside. D) Le Blues will not be entitled to an award of damages for wrongful arrest because Bernt Leano’s name was not changed. Mock Exam Questions 5. Assuming Cargo now wants to arrest Vardee. Which of the statement below relating to Cargo’s claim on Vardee, below is true? A) Cargo’s claim satisfies Section 3(1)(d) of the HCAJA. B) Cargo’s claim satisfies Section 4(3) of the HCAJA against Vardee as there is a maritime lien against Vardee. C) Cargo’s claim satisfies Section 4(4)(b) of HCAJA as the person liable on the claim in action in personam are the managers, Foxes Shipmanagement. D) Cargo’s claim satisfies Section 4(4)(b) and 4(4)(c) of HCAJA even though Vardee is owned by another entity, not King Powder Inc. Mock Exam Questions 6. Regarding the proposal from Fillberth Side P&I Club, which of the following statement is correct? A) Cargo has received an acceptable proposal from the Club and should accept it promptly. B) Cargo should reject the proposal because security should strictly be in the form of a payment into court. C) Cargo should asked the Club for its financial information to verify the Club’s financial position, and if it is in fact in financial difficulties, Cargo should request for a bank guarantee. D) Cargo should accept the proposal even though it answers to a final judgment of the English Courts. Mock Exam Questions 7. It transpired that Brendon Rodder owns Maddisson and she is not under bareboat charter. Assuming Cargo now wants to pursue Maddisson, which of the following statement is correct? A) Cargo’s claim does not satisfy Section 3(1)(d) of the HCAJA. B) Cargo’s claim against Maddisson has a maritime lien. C) Cargo’s claim satisfies Section 4(4)(d) because the Maddisson is owned by Brendon Rodder. D) Cargo’s claim does not satisfy Section 4(4)(b) because Kespar is not owned by Brendon Rodder. Notice Copyright © 2024, Singapore Institute of Legal Education. All rights reserved. The Course materials are developed by the Singapore Institute of Legal Education, based on the content, syllabus, and guidance provided by the Chief and Principal Examiners and their teams. No direct or indirect reproduction, publication, communication to the public, adaptation or any other use (that is prohibited and/or proscribed by copyright laws) of the Course materials in whole or in part in any form or medium is allowed without the written permission of the Singapore Institute of Legal Education. Part B Candidates should refer to the Code of Conduct for more information, particularly, the sections on conduct and behaviour, and the use of SILE resources.