Kohap (Hong Kong) Ltd v Sea Sources Trading: Conversion Claim Over Marine Gas Oil
Kohap (Hong Kong) Ltd, as sub-time-charterers, brought a claim against Sea Sources Trading Pte Ltd, the owners of the 'Tokai Maru' (later renamed 'Endurance 1'), for conversion of marine gas oil (MGO), bunkering equipment, and provisions. The High Court of Singapore, presided over by Justice G P Selvam, dismissed the claim, finding that the owners acted with the knowledge and consent of Cotan Petroleum Pte Ltd, the main charterers, in selling the MGO and that the plaintiffs relinquished their rights by issuing invoices to Cotan Petroleum. The court also noted the absence of a direct demand from the plaintiffs to the defendants for the return of the goods.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Plaintiffs` claim dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Admiralty
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Claim for conversion of marine gas oil. Court dismissed the claim, finding the owners acted with the charterers' consent.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kohap (Hong Kong) Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Sea Sources Trading Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment for Defendant | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| G P Selvam | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Loo Dip Seng | Ang & Partners |
| Vinod Kumar Dube | Dube & Co |
4. Facts
- Kohap (Hong Kong) Ltd was the sub-time-charterer of the tanker 'Tokai Maru'.
- Sea Sources Trading Pte Ltd owned the 'Tokai Maru'.
- Cotan Petroleum Pte Ltd was the time-charterer of the 'Tokai Maru'.
- The claim was for conversion of marine gas oil (MGO), bunkering equipment, and provisions on board the 'Tokai Maru'.
- The owners withdrew the tanker from charter due to non-payment of hire.
- Albert Lim arranged for the sale of the MGO on board the 'Tokai Maru'.
- The proceeds from the sale of the MGO were set off against moneys due to Hozun Oil.
5. Formal Citations
- The "Endurance 1" ex "Tokai Maru", Adm in Rem 7/1996, [2000] SGHC 99
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Three tankers were sold by companies controlled by Albert Lim to companies controlled by Johnny Tay. | |
| Time charterparty was dated between Sea Sources Trading Pte Ltd and Cotan Petroleum Pte Ltd. | |
| The tanker was delivered to the time-charterers and sub-charterers. | |
| Wonjin International faxed Cotan Petroleum asking for the transfer of the MGO and other things. | |
| Wonjin International faxed Cotan Petroleum asking for the transfer of the MGO and other things. | |
| Alleged conversion of goods on board the `Tokai Maru`. | |
| Sea Sources sold MGO to Sentek Marine & Trading Pte Ltd. | |
| Sea Sources sold MGO to Sentek Marine & Trading Pte Ltd. | |
| Sea Sources sold MGO to Sentek Marine & Trading Pte Ltd. | |
| Wonjin International issued three invoices to Cotan Petroleum. | |
| Seawell Petroleum Pte Ltd issued a writ against Johnny Tay and Ernie Yap. | |
| Summary judgment was given for the full amount of $138,888.96. | |
| Cotan Petroleum issued a writ against the `Endurance 1` ex `Tokai Maru`. | |
| Hozun Oil & Trading Pte Ltd filed a suit against Johnny Tay and Ernie Yap. | |
| Writ was filed against the owners of `Tokai Maru`. | |
| Summary judgment was entered for $64,750.77. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Conversion of Goods
- Outcome: The court ruled against the plaintiff, finding no conversion by the defendant.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1902] P 42
- Breach of Duty of Care as Bailee
- Outcome: The court ruled against the plaintiff, finding no breach of duty of care.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1994] 2 AC 324
- Duties of Bailees and Sub-Bailees
- Outcome: The court clarified the duties of bailees and sub-bailees in the context of the case.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1994] 2 AC 324
- [1902] P 42
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages for Conversion
9. Cause of Actions
- Conversion
- Breach of Duty of Care
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Admiralty Law
11. Industries
- Shipping
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Pioneer Container | N/A | Yes | [1994] 2 AC 324 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a sub-bailee owes a duty of care to both the bailor and the sub-bailor. |
| The Winkfield | N/A | Yes | [1902] P 42 | N/A | Cited for the principle that both the bailor and the sub-bailor have a cause of action for conversion against the sub-bailee and that the sub-bailor is entitled to recover substantial damages. |
| The Houda; Kuwait Petroleum Corp v I & D Oil Carriers | N/A | Yes | [1994] 2 Lloyd`s Rep 541 | N/A | Cited as an exception to the rule that a principal bailor cannot directly demand delivery from a sub-bailee without consent, specifically in the context of bills of lading. |
| Sze Hai Tong Bank Ltd v Rambler Cycle Co Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1959] AC 577 | N/A | Cited as an exception to the rule that a principal bailor cannot directly demand delivery from a sub-bailee without consent, specifically in the context of bills of lading. |
| Chabbra Corp Pte Ltd v Owners of the Ship or Vessel Jag Shakti | N/A | Yes | [1986] AC 337 | Singapore | Cited for approving and applying the principles stated in The Winkfield regarding the rights of a possessor against a wrongdoer. |
| The Joannis Vatis | N/A | Yes | [1922] P 92 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the sub-bailor is entitled to recover the full value of the cargo against the wrongdoers but must account to the bailor for their proper share. |
| Eastern Construction Co Ltd v National Trust Co | N/A | Yes | [1914] AC 197 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a bailee who recovers the full value of the goods must account to the bailor for the sum recovered. |
| O`Sullivan v Williams | N/A | Yes | [1992] 3 All ER 385 | N/A | Cited for the principles that a bailee can sue in tort, the bailee's possession is full ownership against a wrongdoer, and that once the bailor's claim is satisfied, the bailee has no further claim. |
| Hollins v Fowler | N/A | Yes | [1875] LR 7 HL 757 | N/A | Distinguished as not applicable to the bailment situation, as it applies to cases where goods are fraudulently taken from the owner. |
| The Endurance 1 | N/A | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 661 | Singapore | Cited to summarize the decision in the suit Cotan Petroleum brought against the defendants. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Bailment
- Sub-bailment
- Conversion
- Marine Gas Oil
- Time Charterparty
- Sub-Charterparty
- Withdrawal of Vessel
15.2 Keywords
- bailment
- conversion
- marine gas oil
- Tokai Maru
- Endurance 1
- shipping
- admiralty
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Bailment | 95 |
| Torts | 70 |
| Breach of Contract | 50 |
| Shipping Law | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Bailment
- Conversion
- Admiralty
- Shipping Law