|
DMC/SandT/06/31
The "Mezen"
Singapore High Court: Daphne Hong Fan Sin AR: [2006] SGHC 35: 23 February 2006
Ari Goh & Partners for Plaintiff
Kelvin Chia Partnership for Defendants
Invocation of ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION:
Whether equipment onboard a ship within scope of "goods carried in a
ship"
Summary
In this case the Admiralty Registrar of Singapore determined that the phrase
"goods carried in a ship" within the terms of s.3(1)(g) of the
Singapore High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act referred to goods carried as
cargo in a ship from one place to another and did not include equipment that had
been put aboard the vessel for the purpose of carrying out some specialist
activity
DMC Category Rating: Confirmed
This case note has been contributed by Ang
& Partners, the International Contributors to the website for Singapore
Facts
The "Mezen" was originally under arrest by Charterers for a claim
for breach of charterparty. The Charterers had chartered her for subsea seismic
survey work and had put equipment on board her for that purpose. They then sold
the seismic equipment to the Plaintiffs, who in turn obtained leave from the
Court to off-load the equipment, albeit on certain terms. In fact, the equipment
onboard was not completely off-loaded.
In the meantime, the Defendants successfully set aside the Charterers’ earlier
warrant of arrest. The Plaintiffs then applied for, and obtained, the present
warrant of arrest against the vessel.
The Defendants challenged the Plaintiffs’ action and applied
to set aside the warrant of arrest on the basis, amongst others, that the
admiralty jurisdiction of the court was wrongly invoked as the claim did not
fall within the ambit of s.3(1)g) of the Singapore High Court (Admiralty
Jurisdiction) Act, which reads as follows:-
"3. —(1) The admiralty jurisdiction of the
High Court shall be as follows, that is to say, jurisdiction to hear and
determine any of the following questions or claims:
(g) any claim for loss of or damage to goods carried in a
ship"
Judgment
The Court found that the words "goods carried in a ship" could not
have such a wide meaning so as to include "whatever [is] conveyed in a
ship" or "the load carried in a ship" as the Plaintiffs had
submitted. This was because s.2 of the Act defined "goods" to extend
to "baggage" and such an extension would not be necessary if the
Plaintiffs’ submission was correct. There was also persuasive English
authority in the case of The Eschersheim [1974] 3 All ER 307 to the
effect that similar words in section (1)(g) of the UK’s
Administration of Justice Act 1956 referred only to "goods carried as
cargo" in the ship. The judge held this case to have been correctly
decided.
The Court thus held that since the vessel was not carrying the
seismic equipment as cargo for the purpose of conveying or transporting it from
one place to another, the equipment was not within the ambit of "goods
carried in a ship". The arrest was therefore set aside.
Comment
This case is clear authority for the proposition that the phrase "goods
carried in a ship" does not include equipment fitted onboard a vessel to
enable it to carry out its work. Thus its arrest in relation to a claim in
regard to such equipment will not be allowed.
Back to Top
|