We welcome article submissions from experts in the areas of coal, mining,
shipping, etc.
To Submit your article please click here.
|
|
|
Tuesday, 02 February 16
SETTING ASIDE, STRIKING OUT AND APPEALS TO THE COURT OF APPEAL IN SHIP ARRESTS - RAJAH & TANN ASIA LLP
 KNOWLEDGE TO ELEVATE
The Singapore Court of Appeal once again has had to grapple with ship arrest, setting aside and appeals to the Court under the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123, 2001 Rev Ed) (“HCAJA”) and the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) (“SCJA”).
One of the longest running arrest cases in recent history, the Chem Orchid is a sequel to the “Bunga Melati 5" [2012] 4 SLR 546 and Wasco Gem” [2014] 2 SLR 63. Both “Bunga Melati 5” and “Nasco Gem” were cited by the Court of Appeal in “Chem Orchid”.
In what is likely the most important admiralty and shipping case of 2015, in The “Chem Orchid” [2016] SGCA 4 (“Chem Orchid”), the Court of Appeal also examined and commented on the relationship between the application to set aside the arrest of a ship and the trial of the claim in the event the arrest is not set aside.
Significantly the decision of the Court of Appeal was that of a 5 Judge panel. Court of Appeal hearings typically feature a 2 or 3 Judge panel and a quorum of 5 Judges is reserved for cases of particular importance.
Another noteworthy mention is that the Chem Orchid was an appeal from the High Court’s decision in The “Chem Orchid” [2015] SGHC 5o that was a leading decision on the difficult issue of Bareboat Charters.
The Chem Orchid cases once again demonstrates the dominance of Rajah & Tann’s Shipping and International Trade team which handled all 3 cases: “Bunga Melati 5″1, Wasco Gem”2 and “Chem Orchid”.
Mr Philip Tay (assisted by Ms Yip Li Ming) of that team represented Mercuria Energy SA in the “Chem Orchid” appeal and in the High Court decision in the The “Chem Orchid” [2015] SGHC 5o.
Brief Facts
Han Kook Capital Co Ltd (“HKC” or “Owners”) were owners of the eponymous “CHEM ORCHID” that was bareboat or demise chartered (“Lease Agreement”) to a company called Seijin Maritime (“Seijin”).
A bareboat or demise charter leases the whole ship to a charterer. As the charterer is for all intents and purposes the owner under the HCAJA, a ship can be arrested for claims against the charterer.
In evidence that was thrown up in the High Court, it transpired that the ship was plagued by mechanical breakdowns. Seijin was itself mired in financial troubles.
Not knowing of these ills, various cargo owners, sub-charterers and suppliers continued to trade with the vessel and sub-chartered her, loaded cargo on her and supplied her with provisions and bunkers.
The vessel eventually met her fate in Singapore after a fatal breakdown and was arrested by her creditors and sold by the High Court as the owners did not provide security to release her.
Seijin did not participate in the High Court proceedings but HKC applied to exclude all the creditors by applying to the High Court to have all the claims set aside or struck out.
HKC’s application was premised on the alleged termination of the Lease Agreement by a notice of termination issued by another company, HK AMC Co Ltd (“HKA”).
HKC had alleged that it had transferred the right to terminate the Lease Agreement to HKA and the notice of termination issued by HKA had terminated the Lease Agreement before the claimants filed their claims in the Singapore Court.
In the alternative HKC applied to strike out the claims on the basis that all the contracts (for the charter of the ship, for the shipment of cargo for the provision of supplies, etc) were made with Seijin and they are not liable for these claims.
Holding of the High Court
In The “Chem Orchid” [2015] SGHC 5o, the High Court dismissed the setting aside and striking out applications of HKC against all creditors.
In an unprecedented case, the High Court went on to examine the requirements for the termination of a bareboat charter, recognising the importance of the topic in admiralty law.
Divergent lines of authorities
There were 2 lines of cases prior to the decision. One group holds that as the physical delivery of the ship was the essence of a bareboat charter, for a bareboat charter to be terminated, the ship must be physically redelivered to effect a reversion of possession and control. A notice was not sufficient.
The other group of cases appeared to hold that a notice was sufficient to terminate even without physical redelivery if this was provided by contract.
In an unprecedented decision, the High Court held that the Lease Agreement had not been validly terminated. The High Court held that:
For a bareboat charter to be terminated, the ship must be physically redelivered to effect a reversion of possession and control to the owner. The requirement of physical redelivery cannot be contracted out of and there is no space in Singapore law for the doctrine of `constructive redelivery’.
The notice of termination was in any event invalid as it should have been issued by HKC. HKA did not have the right to issue the notice. The notice was also defective as it did not meet the requirements of the charter for the notice of termination.
Effect on contracts after termination
The other equally far reaching result of the High Court’s decision was the effect of the contracts made by Seijin if the Lease Agreement had been terminated.
The High Court held that Mercuria had an arguable case that the contracts had been made with HKC if the Lease Agreement was already terminated at the time when the contracts were made for shipment of cargo on the ship. The legal inference was that HKC was the actual contracting party.
HKC appealed to the Court of Appeal contending the decision of the High Court was wrong.
Holding of the Court of Appeal
Appeal dismissed under s 34(1)(a) of the SCJA
The sequence of events leading to the appeals is noteworthy.
Immediately after the Notice of Appeal was filed by HKC, Mercuria and the other parties objected that that HKC had no right to appeal without leave.
HKC “invited” Mercuria and the other parties to strike out the appeal but Mercuria and the other parties felt they did not need to do so. They argued that the burden was on HKC as Appellant to prove that they had the right to appeal.
Despite the objections, HKC surprisingly made no efforts whatsoever to try and ascertain if it had the right to appeal before proceeding further.
Instead, for several months after, HKC continued to prepare and serve its Appellants’ Case, all its Appeal Bundles and its Submissions and right up to the day of the appeal itself, as if it had the right to appeal and went through the entire appeal process.
On the day of the appeal hearing itself, the Court of Appeal held that HKC had no right to appeal and dismissed HKC’s appeal without hearing the merits of the appeal. The Court of Appeal did not reserve its decision and the decision was made on the day of the hearing itself.
In an unprecedented decision, the Court of Appeal held that HKC’s setting aside application was in substance a request to the court to strike out the in rem actions on a basis similar to that which underlies 0 18 r 19 of the Rules of Court.
The grounds relied on by HKC to challenge the court’s jurisdiction were the same as the grounds which could defeat the Creditors’ substantive claims.
The Court of Appeal thus held that s 34(1)(a) of the SCJA read with para (e) of the Fourth Schedule applied and precluded HKC from appealing against the Judge’s decision.
This part of the ruling is potentially far reaching and may extend outside Shipping cases to non-Shipping cases. It may also herald a different approach to the interpretation of the Rules of Court where the Court looks at the substance rather than the form of the application.
Leave under s 34(2)(d) of the SCJA
The Court also held that if an appeal could be filed with leave under s 34(2)(d) of the SCJA read with para (e) of the Fifth Schedule, “…we agree with Mercuria and Winplus that HKC should have sought leave to appeal from the Judge first.”
As HKC did not apply for leave, it meant that even if HKC could have appealed with the court’s leave, the Court of Appeal could not grant HKC leave.
Impact of the setting aside on the trial of the action
Perhaps the most significant aspect of the decision is the impact of setting aside applications on the trial of the action.
The Court held that as the Judge declined to set aside the in rem writs on the basis of the affidavit evidence before him, the present admiralty proceedings continue to be afoot, with no conclusive finding made yet on the jurisdictional point.
The Court held that HKC can therefore raise the jurisdictional issue again at the trial; and the trial judge would be entitled, at that stage, to rule on jurisdiction based on all the evidence, including oral evidence, and the arguments placed before him.
The Court held that nothing said by the Judge or by the Court of Appeal in the present proceedings would have a bearing on how the trial judge should decide the jurisdictional issue at the trial.
Further, whatever the trial judge’s ruling on jurisdiction may be, any party who is dissatisfied would have an automatic right to appeal against that decision.
The Order 57 r 16(4) of the Rules of Court Argument
HKC also argued that under Order 57 r 16(4) of the Rules of Court, the Court of Appeal could grant it leave to appeal despite its failure to obtain leave from the Judge if there were “special circumstances” which made it “impossible or impracticable” for HKC to seek leave to appeal from the Judge.
The Court held this contention was unmeritorious as the correspondence between HKC’s solicitors and the respective solicitors for Mercuria and Winplus showed that HKC’s solicitors had been informed of HKC’s failure to seek leave from the Judge. However, HKC’s solicitors were adamant that HKC did not need leave of court to appeal.
Guidance
Finally, the Court of Appeal also provided the guidance that the proper approach for HKC to take (assuming HKC had a right of appeal to begin with) would have been to seek a declaration from the Judge that it did not need leave of court to appeal.
Alternatively, in the event that the Judge ruled that leave to appeal was needed, HKC should have sought leave from the Judge before lodging its appeals.
HKC’s failure to take these measures could not constitute “special circumstances” so as to bring them within the scope of 0 57 r 16(4) of the ROC.
Source: Rajah & Tann Asia LLP | Hellenic Shipping News
If you believe an article violates your rights or the rights of others, please contact us.
|
|
Tuesday, 26 January 16
OUTLOOK FOR GLOBAL OIL MARKETS - OPEC SECRETARY GENERAL
Opening address by HE Abdalla S. El-Badri, OPEC Secretary General, at the Chatham House Conference: Middle East and North Africa Energy 2016, Theme ...
Monday, 25 January 16
5700 GAR COAL INDEX CLOSED $ 50.08 PER TON, $0.20 LOWER FROM LAST WEEK
COALspot.com: Average 5000 GAR coal index of Indonesian origin decline 1.35 percent week over week to averaging $39.39 per ton on this past Friday, ...
Monday, 25 January 16
SHOULD A DEFAULTING PARTY BE ENTITLED TO AN INNOCENT PARTY'S SAVING, FOLLOWING THEIR BREACH OF CONTRACT? - THE NEW FLAMENCO REVISITED
KNOWLEDGE TO ELEVATE
This case was addressed by the club in our of January 2015, when the High Court decision became available. The background ...
Monday, 25 January 16
DRY BULK SHIPPING: A MISERABLE START TO A NEW YEAR, WHERE THE MARKET STRUGGLES TO GROW AT ALL - BIMCO
The global production of steel dropped in 2015 compared to 2014, to a larger extent outside China, as China exported its surplus of steel to destin ...
Sunday, 24 January 16
PANAMAX MARKET WEAKENS ACROSS THE BOARD
COALspot.com: The Baltic Dry Index, which gauges the cost of shipping dry bulk including iron ore, cement, grain, coal and fertiliser, fell ninetee ...
|
|
|
Showing 2591 to 2595 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- White Energy Company Limited
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Parliament of New Zealand
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- PTC India Limited - India
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Australian Coal Association
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- The University of Queensland
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Planning Commission, India
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
|
| |
| |
|
