Shipping 2026

SINGAPORE Law and Practice Contributed by: Mathiew Christophe Rajoo, Probin Dass and Tan Hui Tsing, DennisMathiew

upon the owner paying into court the sum claimed by the possessory lien holder together with interests and costs. Thus, the court held that it was just and equitable, as well as principled, to accord the costs the same priority as the possessory lien holder. Private sales have been allowed. The applicant has to identify the existence of “powerful special features” or “special circumstances”, but this is an exception rather than the norm: see The Turtle Bay [2013] SGHC 165. 5.11 Insolvency Laws Applied by Maritime Courts In 2017, Singapore adopted some aspects of the Chapter 11 United States Bankruptcy Code, includ - ing: • an automatic moratorium that starts from the date of the moratorium application; and • a worldwide moratorium. Where there is a moratorium for a scheme of arrange - ment in place, the court may restrain further proceed - ings from being commenced or continued. However, in relation to in rem proceedings, Section 64 (12) of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (IRDA) read together with Section 4 of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution (Prescribed Arrange - ments and Proceedings) Regulations 2020 carves out an exception to the commencement (but not the continuation) of admiralty proceedings. This means that creditors will be able to file an in rem writ against a vessel, but will not be able to serve the writ or arrest the vessel. In The “Ocean Winner” [2021] 4 SLR 526, the Singa - pore High Court dealt with Section 64 (8)(c) to (d) of the IRDA, which prohibits the commencement of any proceedings against the company, or any execution, distress or other legal processes against the prop - erty of the company during the automatic moratorium period, without the leave of court. In that case, the plaintiff did not obtain leave of court to file the writs against four vessels that belonged to a company under judicial management. The court found that the filing of the writs only created a statutory lien

in favour of the plaintiff and merely created the secu - rity interest for the plaintiff; it did not yet invoke the admiralty jurisdiction. In that limited sense, the action did not substantively “commence” until service of the writs. Hence, the filing of the in rem writ crystallised the plaintiff’s security interest, which is differentiated from a typical civil action where the claimant’s right to bring their claim already exists. In this regard, the court observed that the moratorium in a scheme of arrange - ment was never intended by parliament to prevent a plaintiff’s security interest from even being created, because the purpose of the scheme of arrangement was simply to give the company “breathing space”. The court also found that the filing of the writs was not “against the company” (pursuant to Section 64 (8)(c), IRDA) because it was an action against the res. The filing of the writs also did not constitute an “execution, distress or other legal process” under Section 64 (8)(d) of the IRDA, because the filing of the in rem writ merely created the statutory lien (ie, the security interest in the ship) and did not involve an element of enforcement. 5.12 Damages in the Event of Wrongful Arrest of a Vessel The arresting party may be liable for damages when the arrest is a “wrongful arrest”. In such a case, the defendant would have to show that the plaintiff had carried out the arrest mala fide or with gross negli - gence so as to imply malice on the part of the arrest - ing party resulting in losses to the defendant. If the defendant is successful in showing wrongful arrest, the warrant of arrest may be set aside, the security put up by the defendant (such as the LOU) shall be returned and damages may be claimed against the arresting party. 6. Passenger Claims 6.1 Laws and Conventions Applicable to the Resolution of Passenger Claims The LLMC 1976 as amended by the 1996 Protocol governs “claims in respect of loss resulting from delay in the carriage by sea of cargo, passengers or their luggage” (Article 1 (b), LLMC 1976).

550 CHAMBERS.COM