MISC Bhd v Griffin Kinetic: Lien & Contract Dispute over Turbine Storage Charges

MISC Bhd, a Malaysian ship owner, sued Griffin Kinetic Pte Ltd and Griffin Kinetic Sdn Bhd in the High Court of Singapore, regarding a dispute over the storage of a turbine. MISC claimed breach of contract and damages against Griffin Kinetic Pte Ltd for failing to deliver the turbine. Griffin Kinetic Pte Ltd argued it acted as an agent for Griffin Kinetic Sdn Bhd. The court, presided over by Justice Kan Ting Chiu, dismissed MISC's claim against Griffin Kinetic Pte Ltd, finding that MISC had contracted with Griffin Kinetic Sdn Bhd. The court also dismissed Griffin Kinetic Sdn Bhd's counterclaim for storage charges, determining that ownership of the stored spares had been transferred to them in settlement of those charges.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's claim against the first defendant is dismissed with costs, and the second defendant’s claim against the plaintiff is also dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Malaysian ship owner MISC Bhd sued Griffin Kinetic over a turbine storage dispute. The court dismissed MISC's claim, finding a contract with Griffin Kinetic Sdn Bhd.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
MISC BhdPlaintiffCorporationClaim DismissedLost
Griffin Kinetic Pte LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment for DefendantWon
Griffin Kinetic Sdn BhdDefendantCorporationCounterclaim DismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Kan Ting ChiuJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Liew Teck HuatNiru & Co
Bhajanvir SinghM P Kanisan & Partners
M P KanisanM P Kanisan & Partners

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff engaged first defendant for turbine transport from Malta to Singapore and Pasir Gudang.
  2. First defendant submitted quotation, turbine shipped and stored in first defendant's warehouse.
  3. First defendant invoiced second defendant; second defendant invoiced plaintiff, who paid.
  4. Plaintiff adopted policy to deal with bumiputra companies; second defendant is a registered bumiputra company.
  5. Second defendant appointed first defendant as its agent for surface forwarding services.
  6. Plaintiff requested turbine release; second defendant refused unless storage charges were paid.
  7. Plaintiff sent letter offering transfer of ownership of spares to settle storage charges.

5. Formal Citations

  1. MISC Bhd v Griffin Kinetic Pte Ltd and Another, Suit 67/2007, [2008] SGHC 153

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Griffin Kinetic Pte Ltd engaged as freight forwarders for the plaintiff.
Spare parts forwarding contract entered into between the two defendant companies.
Plaintiff adopted a policy of dealing with registered bumiputra companies.
Plaintiff instructed Griffin Kinetic Sdn Bhd to deliver turbine rotor to Malaysia Marine and Heavy Engineering Sdn. Bhd.
Plaintiff sent letter to second defendant regarding transfer of ownership of spares.
Plaintiff's Senior Legal Executive informed the second defendant about the turbine delivery instruction.
Plaintiff's solicitors wrote to the first defendant regarding the turbine delivery.
Suit filed (Suit 67/2007).
Second defendant filed a defence and counterclaim.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff contracted with the second defendant, not the first defendant, and therefore the claim for breach of contract against the first defendant failed.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to deliver turbine
      • Contracting party identification
  2. Lien
    • Outcome: The court determined that the issue of lien did not arise because the ownership of the spares had been transferred to the second defendant.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Possessory lien
      • Right of defence vs right of action
  3. Transfer of Ownership
    • Outcome: The court held that the parties were bound by the terms of the letter offering the transfer of spares, and the second defendant became the owner of all stored spares, with its claim for storage charges considered settled.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Settlement of storage charges
      • Scope of transfer

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Delivery of Turbine
  2. Damages for Detention
  3. Damages for Conversion
  4. Special Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Conversion

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Freight Forwarding

11. Industries

  • Shipping
  • Logistics

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Halsbury’s Laws of EnglandN/AYesHalsbury’s Laws of England, (4th Ed Vol 28 Reissue) at para 719EnglandCited for the principle that a legal lien is a right of defence, not a right of action.
Silvertown, Law of LienN/AYesSilvertown, Law of Lien, (Butterworths, 1988), p 5N/ACited for the principle that a legal lien is a right of defence, not a right of action.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Turbine
  • Storage Charges
  • Bumiputra Company
  • Freight Forwarding
  • Lien
  • Agency Agreement
  • Transfer of Ownership
  • Spares

15.2 Keywords

  • Turbine
  • Storage
  • Contract
  • Lien
  • Freight Forwarding
  • Singapore High Court
  • MISC Bhd
  • Griffin Kinetic

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Agency Law80
Contract Law70
Freight Forwarding65
Commercial Law60
Bailment50
Shipping Charges45
Property Law40
Estoppel30

16. Subjects

  • Contract Dispute
  • Freight Forwarding
  • Shipping
  • Storage Charges
  • Agency