JUDGMENT

Low Hop Bing J:

Appeal

Several interesting and novel issues pertaining to practice and procedure were said to have been raised at the hearing of the defendants' application in encl. (33) before the learned registrar, wherein the defendants had on 25 January 2002 sought and succeeded in obtaining an order that the plaintiffs' writ in rem ("this writ"), service thereof on the defendants and all subsequent proceedings be set aside or struck off with costs ("the said decision"). This appeal in encl. (53) to me as judge in chambers was brought by the plaintiffs against the said decision.

Facts Of The Case

For the purposes of this appeal, the facts of the case are uncontroverted.

The unfolding of the narrative showed that on or about 28 May 2001, the plaintiffs' vessel MT "ROWAN" and the defendants' vessel MV 'SINGAPURA TIMUR" were involved in a collision in the Straits of Malacca ("the collision"). Shortly after the collision, MV "SINGAPURA TIMUR" sank in the approximate position of 01°58.5 Lat 102°14.2 Long and now remains on the seabed, and is presently still submerged underwater at a depth of 48 meters at the position where she sank.

By this writ, the plaintiffs claim against the ship or vessel or property MV "SINGAPURA TIMUR" for alleged loss and damage sustained in the collision.

On 11 June 2001, an order was made by the learned registrar on the plaintiffs' ex parteapplication dated 7 June 2001, appointing a diver to effect service of this writ on the property MV "SINGAPURA TIMUR".

This writ was served on or about 21 June 2001 by the diver appointed by the sheriff by attaching a laminated waterproof plastic copy thereof on the outer portion of the superstructure viz. "starboard gangway" and "midship railing" of MV "SINGAPURA TIMUR" while she laid on the seabed.

Videletter dated 27 June 2001, the plaintiffs' solicitors gave notice to the defendants' solicitors that this writ has been served on MV "SINGAPURA TIMUR" at approximately 4.50pm on 21 June 2001 and also enclosed therewith a copy of this writ.

Issues For Determination

Respective learned counsel for both the plaintiffs and the defendants have apparently agreed that there are two issues for determination in this appeal. These issues may be formulated as follows:

1. Whether the admiralty jurisdiction of this court can be invoked in respect of a claim by the plaintiffs against the defendants MV "SINGAPURA TIMUR" which is presently submerged at a depth of 48 meters on the seabed as a result of the collission in the Straits of Malacca?

2. Whether service of this writ on MV "SINGAPURA TIMUR" by the diver appointed videan order of the learned registrar is a proper and valid service?

Admiralty Jurisdiction

In urging this court to invoke admiralty jurisdiction, En. Arun Krishnalingam, learned counsel for the plaintiffs cited s. 24(b) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964("CJA 1964") read with s. 20(1)(a), (b), (2)(d) and (3)(b); and s. 21(3) of the United Kingdom Supreme Court Act 1981 ("UK SCA 1981 Act").

He submitted that the plaintiff has a maritime lien or damage lien on MV "SINGAPURA TIMUR" and so may bring a claim in rem against that ship or property, which lien is not extinguished by a partial loss or destruction.

He added that MV "SINGAPURA TIMUR" lying on the seabed is a ship or property within the meaning of s. 21(3) of the UK SCA 1981 Act.

En. Jainil Bhandari, learned counsel for the defendants, contended that MV "SINGAPURA TIMUR" remaining on the seabed was a wreck and therefore not the proper subject of an action in rem, as the wreck could not come within the description of "ship or property" under s. 21(3) of the UK SCA 1981 Act.

He argued that the continued existence of MV "SINGAPURA TIMUR" ie, the res or property is an essential condition precedent to the availability of any maritime lien for enforcement through an action in rem against that res or property, and that with the loss or destruction of the res or property, having been lost to the sea, all lien