SINGAPORE Law and Practice Contributed by: Mathiew Christophe Rajoo, Probin Dass and Tan Hui Tsing, DennisMathiew
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. 6. Enforcement of Law and Jurisdiction and Arbitration Clauses 6.1 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 a discretion whether to stay proceedings or not where there is an exclusive jurisdiction clause incorporated in the bill of lading. 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 con - tracts... 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 excep - tional 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 wheth - er there is a “strong cause” to refuse a stay are as follows. • In what country the evidence on the issues of fact is situated or more readily available, and the effect of that on the relative convenience and expense of trial as between the Singa - pore and foreign courts. • Whether the law of the foreign court applies and, if so, whether it differs from Singapore law in any material respects. • With what country either party is connected and, if so, how closely. • Whether the defendants genuinely desire trial in the foreign country, or are only seeking procedural advantages. • Whether the plaintiffs would be prejudiced by having to sue in the foreign court because they would: (a) be deprived of security for their claim; (b) be unable to enforce any judgment ob - tained; (c) be faced with a time bar not applicable in Singapore; or (d) for political, racial, religious or other rea - sons be unlikely to get a fair trial. 6.2 Enforcement of Law and Arbitration Clauses Incorporated Into a Bill of Lading Singapore courts recognise and enforce an arbi - tration clause of a counterparty, so long as the clause is expressly stated in the bill of lading. It is
494 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook