The court ruled that damages for wrongful arrest were not warranted as the Plaintiff did not act with malice or gross negligence in obtaining the Warrant of Arrest.

JUDGMENT

Ong Chee Kwan J:

Introduction

[1] The Defendant applied under encl 20 to set aside the Writ In Rem and Warrant of Arrest both dated 22 June 2023 against the vessel, "MT LINGYANG" ("the Vessel") under O 12 r 10 and O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b), (c) and or (d) of the Rules of 2012 ("ROC 2012"). The Defendant further prayed for damages for wrongful arrest and or continuation of the arrest.

[2] On 28 November 2023, I granted the Defendant the order to set aside the Writ In Rem and the Warrant of Arrest but did not accede to the prayer for damages for wrongful arrest. Being dissatisfied, the Defendant appealed against my refusal to award damages for wrongful arrest.

[3] This judgment sets out the grounds for not granting damages for wrongful arrest.

Brief Background Facts

[4] The Plaintiff's cause of action stemmed from a voyage charterparty entered with the registered owner of the Vessel at the material time, Opportunities Sea SA ("Opportunities").

[5] According to the Plaintiff, the Charterparty provides for "loading at one safe port or STS location at safety outside-Port-Limit (OPL) anchorage of MEG including Oman, Fujairah or Khor Fakkan in Charterers ' option. "

[6] On 21 September 2023, the Vessel arrived at Khor Fakkan OPL and Notice of Readiness (NOR) was tendered. Charterers then discussed with Opportunities on a safe ship-to-ship ("STS") location, and on 29 September 2022, it was agreed to be at a position near the Persian Gulf, Iran.

[7] The Plaintiff claimed that Opportunities refused to proceed to the agreed STS location and to perform the STS operation because the Plaintiff failed to provide relevant mothership documents, STS documents and those showing the cargo's origin. The Plaintiff did not agree, declared a breach of the Charterparty, and claimed damages being a percentage of freight as compensation and refund of demurrage paid.

[8] The Charterparty provides for Singapore arbitration. The Plaintiff filed this admiralty Writ In Rem action and arrested the Vessel as security for its purported claim in arbitration.

[9] The Plaintiff made the claim against the Defendant instead of Opportunities on 2 grounds, namely, that:

a) Opportunities entered into the Charterparty on behalf of the Defendant;

b) the Defendant was the registered Owner of the Vessel when their alleged cause of action arose.

[10] After reading the parties' written submissions and hearing learned counsel's oral submissions, I set aside the Writ In Rem and the Warrant of Arrest against the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant is not the party liable in personam to the Plaintiff as the Charterers of the Vessel for the sums claimed in the Writ In Rem.

[11] This is because the Defendant did not contract with the Charterers, nor did the Defendant authorise Opportunities to contract on their behalf. The true party liable for the sums claimed by Charterers under the Charterparty is Opportunities.

[12] The Defendant was not the registered owners of the Vessel in September 2022, when the dispute upon which this action was brought arose. However, I do not think that this is a case where this Court should order the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant damages for wrongful arrest.

No Damages For Wrongful Arrest

[13] It is trite that the Defendant is entitled to damages for a wrongful arrest of Vessel in the Plaintiff's exercise of admiralty jurisdiction if this Court finds that the arrest is brought with so little color or with so little foundation, that it implies malice or gross negligence.

[14] The test to be applied in deciding whether or not to order an inquiry as to damages for the wrongful arrest of a ship is succinctly encapsulated by the Privy Council in The Evangelismos [1858] 12 Moo PC 352 :

"... is there or is there not, reason to say, that the action was so unwarrantedly brought, or brought with so little colour, or so little foundation, that it rather implies malice on the part of the plaintiff, or that gross negligence which is equivalent to it?"

[15] This was also r