Mandatory requirements for extending writs in admiralty actions must be strictly followed, including evidence of service efforts.

[1] This is an admiralty action in rem against a vessel called "MAPLE" (IMO NO 9168477) filed by the Plaintiff via a writ WA-27NCC-30- 04/2017 (the Writ) filed on 5 April 2017. By virtue of O 6 r 7(1) of the Rules of 2012 (RoC 2012), the validity of the Writ expires on 4 October 2017. The Plaintiff has yet to file its statement of claim.

[2] On 20 October 2017 the Plaintiff obtained a Court order for the extension of the validity of the Writ for six months from 5 October 2017. On 4 April 2018 the Plaintiff filed another application for an order that the validity of the Writ be further extended for another 6 months from 5 April 2018 (Enclosure 14).

[3] On 11 April 2018, after considering the application and the affidavit in support of encl 14, I dismissed the application. The Plaintiff appealed against the dismissal.

Parties

[4] The Plaintiff, Societe Generale, is and was at all material times, a banking institution established or incorporated in France and registered to operate in Singapore.

[5] The Defendant was at all material times, the registered owner of the vessel "MAPLE" (hereinafter referred to as "the Vessel") and/or carrier and/or bailee of the cargoes which were shipped on board the Vessel pursuant to nine (9) Bills of Lading (hereinafter referred to as "the Cargoes").

Factual Background

[6] The Plaintiff initiated the action in rem by filing the Writ which sets out its claim as endorsed on the Writ. As the Plaintiff has yet to file its statement of claim, the factual background related below is gathered from the Plaintiff's affidavit (Enclosure 7) filed to support its application for a warrant of arrest against the Vessel (Enclosure 3). For the purpose of this judgment in respect of the application to extend the validity of the Writ, the facts narrated below only relate to the salient facts which transpired between the Plaintiff and Defendant.

[7] The Plaintiff had granted a loan facility for trade of the Cargoes to Aavanthi Industries Pte Ltd. (Aavanti) and Tropical Grains and Feeds Industries Pte Ltd (Tropical), (both collectively referred to as "the Borrowers") pursuant to the terms of a Trade Finance Facility (Trade Facility) contained in a letter dated 23 July 2015 and the addendum dated 17 February 2016 thereto (the Facility Letter). The Trade Facility is also subject to the Plaintiff's Standard Terms for Trade Finance dated 7 July 2011 and the amendments made thereto dated 12 August 2015 (the Standard Terms for Trade Finance).

[8] In consideration and as security to the grant of the Trade Facility, Aavanthi agreed that the Plaintiff would have a pledge upon the Cargoes and the Trade Documents as a continuing security for the payment and discharge of Aavanthi's liabilities to the Plaintiff.

[9] The Cargoes which were on board the Vessel on 25 March 2016 were to be shipped by the Defendant from the port of Loading, Tanjung Bakau, Indonesia to the port of Discharge, JNPT, India.

[10] It was an express and/or implied term of the Contracts of Carriage contained in the Bills of Lading and/or the Defendant's duty thereunder and/or its duty as carriers and/or bailees that the Defendant would only deliver the Cargoes as described in each Bills of Lading against the surrender, production or presentation of the original of the particular Bills of Lading under which that portion of the Cargoes, as described in the Bills of Lading was shipped.

[11] However the Cargoes had been released without the production of the Bills of Lading.

[12] The Plaintiff is still in possession of the full set of three originals of each Bills of Lading and the Plaintiff has yet to receive any substantive response to the Plaintiff's request made