SINGAPORE Law and Practice Contributed by: Mathiew Christophe Rajoo, Probin Dass and Tan Hui Tsing, DennisMathiew
Pursuant to Section 8 of the Maritime Conventions Act 1911, the time bar for claims against a vessel or the ship-owners for damage or loss – inter alia, for loss of life or personal injuries suffered by persons on board the vessel – would be two years from the date of loss or injury. Under Article 7 of the LLMC 1976, “In respect of claims arising on any distinct occasion for loss of life or personal injury to passengers of a ship, the limit of liability of the shipowner thereof shall be an amount of 175,000 Units of Account multiplied by the number of passengers which the ship is authorised to carry according to the ship’s certificate”. A claim for personal injury of a passenger may attract a statutory lien pursuant to Section 3 (1)(f) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act and may be brought against the vessel as a maritime claim. 7. Enforcement of Law and Jurisdiction and Arbitration Clauses 7.1 Enforcement of Law and Jurisdiction Clauses Stated in Bills of Lading Singapore courts generally recognise jurisdiction clauses that are expressly stated in the bill of lading. Generally, the court retains discretion as to whether to stay proceedings or not where there is an exclu - sive jurisdiction clause incorporated in the bill of lad - ing. As the court of appeal held in Vinmar Overseas (Singapore) Pte Ltd v PTT International Trading Pte Ltd [2018] SGCA 65, “Exclusive jurisdiction clauses are ubiquitous provisions in international commercial contracts... Regardless of the reason for the choice of the agreed forum, an exclusive jurisdiction clause has full contractual force unless and until it is invalidated”. Accordingly, the court’s discretion should be exercised in favour of a stay of proceedings brought in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause, unless the applicant can find a “strong cause” for resisting a stay based on exceptional circumstances ( Amerco Timbers Pte Ltd v Chatsworth Timber Corp Pte Ltd [1977–1978] SLR(R) 112; The “Eastern Trust” [1994] 2 SLR(R) 511 at [8]).
As held in Amerco Timbers (which endorsed The Eleftheria [1969] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 237), the factors that the court would consider in deciding whether there is a “strong cause” to refuse a stay are as follows: • the country in which the evidence on the issues of fact is situated or more readily available, and the effect thereof on the convenience and expense of trial as between Singapore and foreign courts; • whether the law of the foreign court applies and, if so, whether it differs from Singapore law in any material respects; • the country either party is connected to, and how closely; • whether the defendants genuinely desire trial in the foreign country, or are only seeking procedural advantages; and • whether the plaintiffs would be prejudiced by hav - ing to sue in the foreign court because they would: (a) be deprived of security for their claim; (b) be unable to enforce any judgment obtained; (c) be faced with a time bar not applicable in Sin - gapore; or (d) for political, racial, religious or other reasons, be unlikely to get a fair trial. 7.2 Enforcement of Law and Arbitration Clauses Incorporated Into a Bill of Lading Singapore courts recognise and enforce an arbitra - tion clause of a counterparty, so long as the clause is expressly stated in the bill of lading. It is well estab - lished that a clause merely purporting to incorporate the terms of a charterparty without express reference to the arbitration clause may not be sufficient to incor - porate the arbitration clause (this is a principle reiter - ated in The “Navios Koyo” [2021] SGCA 99 at [21]). There is Singapore case law to suggest that general wording may be insufficient to incorporate an ancil - lary charterparty arbitration clause, and that the same result must follow with regard to the charterparty juris - diction clause ( The “Dolphina” [2012] 1 SLR 992). Par - ties should make clear in the bill of lading that it is subject to an arbitration clause in the charter. Where an arbitration clause has been expressly incor - porated into the charterparty, court proceedings that had been commenced to arrest the vessel may be
551 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook