T. Kulasekaram J:

2,523 pieces of Ramin logs were shipped on board the barge L 2600 and towed by this tug Jeddy X for carriage from Pulau Pisau and Paminggir, Indonesia to Singapore under two bills of lading dated 29 August and 15 September 1974 and numbered 1/74.

The said barge and tug left for Singapore on 19 September 1974 and while still in Indonesian waters had to be diverted to Sampit Bay, Indonesia where soon after arrival on 21 September 1974 the barge which was heavily listing to port was grounded. Singapore Salvage Engineers, a Singapore firm of salvors inspected and carried out salvage operations at the request of the appellants. Apparently this cargo of Ramin logs had been damaged by sea water.

Arising out of those transactions the plaintiffs/ respondents as the owners or the persons entitled to the delivery of the cargo of Ramin logs comprised in the said two bills of lading commenced an Admiralty Action in RemNo. 305/ 75 against the owners of the barge L 2600 as first defendants and against the owners of vessels Jeddy IV, Jeddy VII, Jeddy XI and Jeddy XII as second defendants for damages and loss suffered by them and in the same action sued Amerco Timbers Pte Ltd in personam, as the third defendants as the persons who issued or on whose behalf the said two bills of lading were issued for damages and loss suffered by them.

Only the third defendants/appellants have so far been served. They entered a conditional appearance to the writ of summons and applied to have the writ set aside or alternatively for all further proceedings in the action as against them, the third defendants, to be stayed on the ground that under the contract of carriage contained in the said two bills of lading the parties had provided that 'all actions under this contract shall be brought before the court at Djakarta'.

The application was first heard by the deputy registrar who dismissed the application with costs.

The third defendants/appellants appealed to the High court. The learned Mr. Chua J who heard this appeal dismissed it with costs and affirmed the order of the deputy registrar.

It is against this order of the High court that the third defendants as the appellants here appeal to this court.

There are two grounds of appeal:

(1) The judge did not properly exercise his discretion in that he failed to give proper consideration to the correct principles of law and the facts.

(2) He took into account irrelevant matters and failed to take into consideration relevant matters.

The appellants in support of their original application had filed two affidavits by Mr. Rodney L Minchin, a director of the appellant company, the first of these dated 25 February 1976 and his second affidavit dated 20 May 1976 was a reply to an affidavit by Mr. Chew Charm Pan dated 12 March 1976 filed on behalf of the respondents to resist this application. Mr. Chew Charm Pan was the Marine Manager of the People's Insurance Co. of Malaya Ltd who had insured this cargo of Ramin logs and had paid the respondents' claim and are now subrogated to the respondents' rights.

The background and the nature of the dispute and all information relevant to this application come from the writ of summons, affidavits and the documents exhibited to the affidavits. The defendants do not now seek to set aside the writ but only to stay the action.