Consorcio MGT v Owner of MIN RUI: Admiralty Claim for Damaged Steel Structures
In Consorcio MGT and DM Construtora De Obras Ltda v Owner and/or Demise Charterer of the vessel “MIN RUI”, the High Court of Singapore heard an admiralty action in rem regarding a claim for loss and damage to a consignment of steel structures. The plaintiffs sued as owners, consignees, and/or bill of lading holders. The court allowed the defendant's appeal, finding that the defendant was not the beneficial owner of the vessel Min Rui on 16 December 2014, when the in rem writ was issued, because the vessel had been sold in October 2014.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Admiralty
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Admiralty action concerning damaged steel structures. The court held that the defendant was not the beneficial owner of the vessel at the time the in rem writ was issued.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CONSORCIO MGT | Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
DM CONSTRUTORA DE OBRAS LTDA | Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
Owner and/or Demise Charterer of the vessel “MIN RUI” | Defendant | Other | Appeal Allowed | Won |
3. Judges
Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
---|---|---|
Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Plaintiffs claimed for loss and damage to a consignment of steel structures shipped on the Min Rui.
- The consignment was shipped on 24 June 2014 from Humen, China to Itajai, Brazil.
- The defendant was the registered owner of the Min Rui when the cause of action arose.
- The defendant sold the Min Rui in October 2014 to Chellona Investment Inc and/or its nominee.
- Delivery of possession of the Min Rui took place on 12 December 2014 at Qingdao, China.
- The in rem writ was issued on 16 December 2014.
- The Min Rui was renamed Qi Dong before the arrest on 11 February 2015.
5. Formal Citations
- THE “MIN RUI”, ADM No 271 of 2014(RA No 342 of 2015), [2016] SGHC 183
6. Timeline
Date | Event |
---|---|
Consignment of steel structures shipped on board the Min Rui at Humen, China for carriage to Itajai, Brazil | |
Min Rui arrived at Itajai, Brazil | |
Defendant entered into a Memorandum of Agreement to sell the Min Rui to Chellona Investment Inc and/or its nominee | |
First addendum to the Memorandum of Agreement setting out the agreed list of delivery documents | |
Second addendum to the Memorandum of Agreement nominating Qidong Shipping Limited as the ultimate buyer | |
Provisional Patente De Navegacion issued to the Buyer in respect of the vessel by the Directorate General of Merchant Marine Panama | |
Plaintiffs obtained a report on the Min Rui from Lloyd’s List Intelligence | |
Bill of sale executed by the defendant in favor of the Buyer of the Min Rui | |
Delivery of possession of the Min Rui took place at Qingdao, China | |
Defendant and the Buyer signed a Protocol of Delivery and Acceptance | |
Executed Bill of Sale handed over to the Buyer, who signed the Acceptance of Sale | |
Plaintiffs obtained a report on the vessel Qi Dong from Lloyd’s List Intelligence | |
Plaintiffs obtained a Transcript of the Hong Kong Shipping Register | |
Attestation for Change of Ship’s Name, Flag and Ownership issued by Bureau Veritas | |
Cajigas & Co advised the plaintiffs that there was no record of a change of ownership of the Min Rui in PRMAP | |
Notice of Intention to Close a Ship’s Registration by Owner submitted to the Hong Kong Shipping Register | |
Plaintiffs filed the in rem writ | |
Registration of the Min Rui closed in the Hong Kong Shipping Register | |
Certificate of Deletion issued by the Hong Kong Registrar of Ships | |
Continuous Synopsis Record issued stating that the Min Rui ceased to be registered with the flag state, Hong Kong | |
Plaintiffs conducted a search at the Hong Kong Shipping Register | |
Notarial Certificate of Bill of Sale issued by the Consul General of Panama in Vietnam | |
Cajigas & Co confirmed that the vessel was not registered in PRMAP | |
Min Rui arrested in Singapore | |
Public Deed of Title for Permanent Recordation at the PRMAP was filed | |
Security provided by the defendant to be returned |
7. Legal Issues
- Beneficial Ownership
- Outcome: The court held that the defendant was not the beneficial owner of the vessel at the time the in rem writ was issued.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1977-1978] SLR(R) 105
- [1992] 2 SLR (R) 231
- [1993] 2 SLR (R) 113
- [1999] 2 SLR(R) 647
- Jurisdiction
- Outcome: The court determined that it lacked in rem jurisdiction because the defendant was not the beneficial owner of the vessel when the writ was issued.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Related Cases:
- [1993] 3 SLR (R) 71
- [1997] 3 SLR(R) 829
8. Remedies Sought
- Arrest of the vessel
- Damages for loss and damage to cargo
9. Cause of Actions
- Admiralty Action in Rem
- Claim for loss and damage to a consignment of steel structures
10. Practice Areas
- Admiralty
- Shipping
- Jurisdiction
- Beneficial Ownership
11. Industries
- Shipping
12. Cited Cases
Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
The Pangkalan Susu/Permina 3001 | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1977-1978] SLR(R) 105 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of beneficial ownership in the context of admiralty jurisdiction. |
The Kapitan Temkin | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR (R) 537 | Singapore | Cited regarding estoppel in relation to the certificate of register and the entries in the register. |
The Opal 3 ex Kuchino | High Court | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR (R) 231 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that registration of a ship is prima facie but not conclusive evidence of true ownership. |
The Ohm Mariana ex Poeny | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR (R) 113 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that registration of a ship is not conclusive proof of true ownership and the court may look behind the register. |
The Temasek Eagle | High Court | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR(R) 647 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that entries in Lloyd’s Register of Shipping and the ship’s register are useful starting points but not conclusive proof of beneficial ownership. |
The Andres Bonifacio | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR (R) 71 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court may trace the history of ownership to ascertain who the beneficial owner of a vessel was and that the determination of jurisdiction in rem depends on Singapore law as the lex fori. |
The Makassar Caraka Jaya Niaga 111-39 | High Court | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 982 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the ascertainment of beneficial ownership of a vessel is a matter of Singapore law and that the court will take into account relevant aspects of foreign law. |
The Tian Sheng No 8 | Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal | Yes | [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 430 | Hong Kong | Cited for the principle that it would not be easy to prove that the registered owner of a vessel was not its beneficial owner. |
The Almojil 61 | Hong Kong Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 3 HKLRD 598 | Hong Kong | Cited for the principle that the words “beneficial owner” should not be construed in the manner for the benefit of plaintiffs and may not be used by defendants to defeat the arrest of a ship. |
The Evpo Agnic | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 411 | England and Wales | Cited as the English position on the definition of 'owner' which the Singapore Court of Appeal departed from in The Ohm Mariana. |
The Halycyon Isle | High Court | Yes | [1979-1980] SLR(R) 538 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the question of jurisdiction must be determined by the lex fori. |
The TS Havprins | High Court | Yes | [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 356 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the question of jurisdiction must be determined by the lex fori. |
The Jarguh Sawit | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 829 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the question of jurisdiction must always be determined by the lex fori. |
The Sangwon | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 919 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court would take into account North Korean law to determine if the registered owner of a vessel could hold property. |
Tisand (Pty) Ltd and Others v The Owners of the Ship M.V “Cape Moreton” (Ex “Freya”) | Federal Court of Australia | Yes | [2005] FCAFC 68 | Australia | Cited for the principle that for a ship to be subject to in rem jurisdiction, it must be the property of the presumptively liable relevant person. |
The Nazym Khikmet | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 362 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the application of the law of the lex fori includes the law of the forum’s rules of private international law making foreign law relevant. |
Raftland Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation | High Court of Australia | Yes | [2008] HCA 21 | Australia | Cited for the need for caution in adopting the description “sham” as the finding of sham requires a finding of deceit. |
The Ocean Enterprise | High Court | Yes | [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 449 | England and Wales | Cited as an example of a case where sale transactions have been found to be shams. |
The Saudi Prince | High Court | Yes | [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 255 | England and Wales | Cited as an example of a case where sale transactions have been found to be shams. |
The Enfield | High Court | Yes | [1981-1982] SLR(R) 527 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where sale transactions have been found to be shams. |
The Tjaskemolen | High Court | Yes | [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 465 | England and Wales | Cited as an example of a case where sale transactions have been found to be shams. |
The Skaw Prince | High Court | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR(R) 146 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where sale transactions have been found to be shams. |
Naamlooze Vennootschap Stoomvaart Maatschappij Vredobert v European Shipping Co, Ltd | Not Available | Yes | [1926] 25 Lloyd’s Rep 210 | Not Available | Cited for the distinction between a “sale” and an “agreement to sell”. |
13. Applicable Rules
Rule Name |
---|
No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
---|---|
High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
Merchant Shipping (Registration) Ordinance | Hong Kong |
Admiralty Act 1988 | Australia |
Sale of Goods Act 1979 | England and Wales |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Beneficial ownership
- In rem writ
- Memorandum of Agreement
- Bill of Sale
- Provisional Patente
- Lex fori
- Norwegian Saleform
- Delivery of possession
- Hong Kong Shipping Register
- Panama Registry
15.2 Keywords
- Admiralty
- Shipping
- Beneficial Ownership
- Jurisdiction
- In Rem
- Min Rui
- Steel Structures
- Cargo Damage
17. Areas of Law
Area Name | Relevance Score |
---|---|
Admiralty and Maritime Law | 95 |
Jurisdiction | 70 |
Beneficial Ownership | 60 |
Property Law | 60 |
Civil Procedure | 50 |
Contract Law | 40 |
Shipping Disputes | 40 |
Sale of Goods | 30 |
Choice of Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Admiralty Jurisdiction
- Beneficial Ownership of Vessels
- Sale of Goods
- Conflict of Laws