The “Oriental Baltic”: UBT v OML - Leave to Continue In Rem Action Post-Winding Up
United Bunkering & Trading (Asia) Pte Ltd (“UBT”) applied to the High Court of Singapore for leave to continue its in rem action against Oriental MES Logistics Pte Ltd (“OML”), the owner of the Oriental Baltic, after OML commenced winding up. Posh Maritime Pte Ltd (“PMP”) intervened, opposing UBT's application. The High Court, presided over by Justice Tan Lee Meng, dismissed UBT's application, holding that allowing UBT to continue its action would be unfair to OML's other unsecured creditors, as UBT's in rem action was initiated after the winding up commenced.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Admiralty
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
UBT sought leave to continue its in rem action against OML after OML's winding up. The court dismissed UBT's application, prioritizing fairness to all creditors.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United Bunkering & Trading (Asia) Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Oriental MES Logistics Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | |||
| Posh Maritime Pte Ltd | Intervener | Corporation | Intervention successful | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tan Lee Meng | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Goh Wing Sun | W S Goh & Co |
| Bernard Yee | Gurbani & Co. |
4. Facts
- UBT applied for leave to continue its in rem action against OML, which is being wound up.
- UBT's claim is for US$183,106.84 for the supply of marine gas oil.
- UBT instituted its in rem action after the winding up of OML commenced.
- UBT had filed a caveat against the release of the Vessel before the winding up commenced.
- The Vessel was sold, and the proceeds were paid into court.
- PMP obtained judgment in ADM 92 and applied for determination of priorities.
5. Formal Citations
- The “Oriental Baltic”, Admiralty in Rem No 163 of 2010 (Summons No 5654 of 2010), [2011] SGHC 75
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| PT Sarana Kelola Investa arrested the Vessel in Singapore. | |
| UBT filed a caveat against the release of the Vessel. | |
| PMP was given leave to intervene in ADM 328. | |
| OML’s directors resolved to wind up the company. | |
| Winding up of OML commenced. | |
| UBT instituted its in rem action against OML. | |
| The Vessel was sold by the Sheriff. | |
| PMP obtained judgment in ADM 92. | |
| PMP applied for the determination of priorities and payment out of the proceeds of sale of the Vessel. | |
| UBT’s application for leave to continue with its in rem action was heard. | |
| Judgment was delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Leave to continue action against company being wound up
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application for leave to continue the action.
- Category: Procedural
- Secured creditor status in in rem action
- Outcome: The court held that UBT was not a secured creditor as it had not instituted in rem proceedings before the winding up commenced.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Leave to continue in rem action
- Payment from proceeds of sale of vessel
9. Cause of Actions
- In Rem Action
- Supply of Goods
10. Practice Areas
- Admiralty
- Insolvency
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Shipping
- Bunkering
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In re Aro Co Ltd | Chancery Division | Yes | [1980] Ch 196 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the usual object of suing in rem is to obtain security and the rights of a plaintiff suing in rem have points of similarity with the rights of a legal or equitable mortgagee or chargee. |
| The Hull 308 | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1991] 2 SLR(R) 643 | Singapore | Cited for the test for determining whether the plaintiffs in any given case are secured creditors is to ask whether immediately before the presentation of the winding-up petition, they could assert against all the world that the vessel was security for their claim. |
| In re Oak Pits Colliery Co | N/A | Yes | (1882) 21 Ch D 322 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the primary object of the winding up provisions of the Act is to put all unsecured creditors upon an equality and to pay them pari passu. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- In rem action
- Winding up
- Caveat against release
- Secured creditor
- Liquidation
- Priorities
- Proceeds of sale
15.2 Keywords
- Admiralty
- In rem
- Winding up
- Liquidation
- Companies Act
- Secured creditor
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Winding Up | 90 |
| Admiralty and Maritime Law | 70 |
| Company Law | 60 |
| Bankruptcy | 50 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Admiralty
- Company Law
- Insolvency