Jeil Crystal: Arrest Warrant Validity After Claim Amendment in Admiralty Law

In the case of *Owner of the vessel JEIL CRYSTAL (IMO No. 9193587) v Owners of cargo lately laden onboard JEIL CRYSTAL (IMO No. 9193587)*, the Singapore Court of Appeal addressed whether an arrest warrant can be upheld based on an amended claim not originally pleaded. The court, comprising Judith Prakash JCA, Tay Yong Kwang JCA, and Steven Chong JCA, allowed the appeal, holding that a warrant of arrest cannot be upheld on the basis of an amended claim or cause of action which was not originally pleaded by the arresting party at the time of the application for and the issue of the warrant of arrest. The court ordered the warrant of arrest to be set aside and the security to be returned to the appellant.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Admiralty

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore Court of Appeal clarifies that an arrest warrant cannot be upheld based on an amended claim not originally pleaded, focusing on admiralty jurisdiction.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Owner of the vessel JEIL CRYSTAL (IMO No. 9193587)Appellant, DefendantCorporationAppeal AllowedWon
Owners of cargo lately laden onboard JEIL CRYSTAL (IMO No. 9193587)Respondent, PlaintiffOtherAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Judith PrakashJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Tay Yong KwangJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Steven ChongJustice of the Court of AppealYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Tan Chai Ming MarkFocus Law Asia LLC
Ahn Mi MiFocus Law Asia LLC
Genesa Tan Yun RuFocus Law Asia LLC
Liew Teck HuatNiru & Co LLC
Phang CunkuangNiru & Co LLC

4. Facts

  1. BCG financed a transaction for GP Global to purchase Lube Base Oil.
  2. Original bills of lading named BCG as consignee.
  3. BCG released and endorsed the Original BL to GP Global.
  4. GP Global requested the return of the Original BL to procure delivery of the Cargo to Prime Oil.
  5. The Cargo was discharged without production of the Original BL.
  6. BCG commenced HC/ADM 256/2020 claiming damages for conversion and/or breaches of contract.
  7. BCG obtained a warrant of arrest for the Vessel based on being the 'holder' of the Original BL.

5. Formal Citations

  1. The “Jeil Crystal”, Civil Appeal No 22 of 2022, [2022] SGCA 66

6. Timeline

DateEvent
BCG financed a transaction for the purchase of 2,000 metric tons of Lube Base Oil 150BS by GP Global.
BCG released and endorsed the Original BL to GP Global.
The Original BL was surrendered by GP Global to JIL.
BCG became concerned about several shipments involving GP Global.
BCG commenced HC/ADM 256/2020.
BCG obtained a warrant of arrest for the Vessel.
WA 39 was executed, and the Vessel was arrested.
BCG’s solicitors stated that BCG holds the original 3/3 Bills of Lading.
JIL furnished security by way of payment into court in the sum of S$2.1m.
The Vessel was released.
BCG filed its statement of claim in ADM 256.
JIL instructed its solicitors to file a Notice to Produce.
BCG’s solicitors filed a Notice of Inspection.
JIL filed its defence & counterclaim in ADM 256.
BCG filed its reply and defence to counterclaim.
BCG filed HC/SUM 586/2021 to amend the SOC.
JIL filed HC/SUM 599/2021 to set aside WA 39.
The Judge dismissed JIL’s application to set aside WA 39 and to strike out the Writ and ADM 256, but he allowed BCG’s application to amend the SOC.
The Court of Appeal heard and allowed the appeal.
The Court of Appeal delivered the grounds of decision.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Validity of Arrest Warrant
    • Outcome: The court held that a warrant of arrest cannot be upheld on the basis of an amended claim or cause of action which was not originally pleaded by the arresting party at the time of the application for and the issue of the warrant of arrest.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Amendment of claim
      • Cause of action
  2. Amendment of Pleadings
    • Outcome: The court clarified the effect of amending a statement of claim on the endorsement in the writ, noting that the causes of action should be aligned and inconsistencies can be considered a defect or error.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Relation back rule
      • Defect or error in proceedings

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages
  2. Setting aside warrant of arrest
  3. Return of Security

9. Cause of Actions

  • Conversion
  • Breach of Contract
  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Admiralty Jurisdiction
  • Action in Rem
  • Amendments

11. Industries

  • Shipping
  • Banking
  • Trade Finance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
The Eagle PrestigeHigh CourtYes[2010] 3 SLR 294SingaporeCited regarding the duty of the applicant to place the requisite information before the court so as to put the court in a position to determine if its discretionary powers of arrest should be exercised.
The Vasiliy GolovninHigh CourtYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 994SingaporeCited regarding the applicant's duty to make full and frank disclosure of material facts, just as in any other ex parte application.
The PetrelUnknownYes(1836) 3 Hagg 299UnknownCited for the principle that any removal of or interference with arrested property, with the knowledge that an arrest warrant has been issued, would constitute a contempt of court.
Pan-United Shipyard Pte Ltd v The Chase Manhattan Bank (National Association)High CourtYes[1999] 1 SLR(R) 703SingaporeCited for the principle that any defect in the endorsement of claim can be cured by the delivery of a proper statement of claim.
Veale v Automatic Boiler Feeder Co LtdQueen's Bench DivisionYes(1887) 18 QBD 631England and WalesCited to show that a statement of claim, although in the nature of a pleading and separate from the endorsement of claim in the writ, is a particularisation of the claim as set out in the endorsement.
Renowden v McMullin and anotherHigh Court of AustraliaYes(1970) 123 CLR 584AustraliaCited to explain the relationship between the statement of claim and the endorsement in the writ.
Moulin Global Eyecare Holdings Ltd v Olivia Lee Sin MeiHong Kong Court of Final AppealYes(2014) 17 HKCFAR 466Hong KongCited to show that a statement of claim still falls to be construed with reference to the endorsement in the writ for the purposes of determining the cause of action or relief which the plaintiff is entitled to pursue in the proceedings.
Johnson v PalmerCourt of Common Pleas DivisionYes(1879) 4 CPD 258England and WalesCited for the general rule that, while a plaintiff is permitted to alter, modify or extend the original endorsed claim in his statement of claim and to claim further or other relief, he can only do so without amending the writ if he does not completely change the cause of action endorsed on the writ.
Mercurine Pte Ltd v Canberra Development Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 907SingaporeCited to show that an order of court can only be amended pursuant to O 20 r 11 in limited circumstances.
Philip Securities (Pte) v Yong Tet MiawHigh CourtYes[1988] 1 SLR(R) 566SingaporeCited as an example where the quantum of the judgment sum was misstated due to an inadvertent typographical error.
AAY and others v AAZHigh CourtYes[2011] 2 SLR 528SingaporeCited as an example where there has been an error in the words used to express the court’s manifest intention in a court order, so that the court’s intention was not accurately captured in the wording of that order.
Kuah Kok Kim v Chong Lee Leong Seng Co (Pte) LtdHigh CourtYes[1991] 1 SLR(R) 795SingaporeCited to show that for the court’s powers under O 2 r 1 to be engaged, there must, in the first place, be an “irregularity”, which is some form of non-compliance with the requirements in the Rules.
Bernstein and another v Jackson and othersEnglish Court of AppealYes[1982] 1 WLR 1082England and WalesCited to show that if the specific nature of the non-compliance is governed by other provisions of the Rules, then any such “irregularity” would have to be examined under that provision and not under O 2 r 1.
The AmigoHong Kong Court of First InstanceNo[1991] 2 HKC 491Hong KongCited for the proposition that a warrant of arrest obtained on the basis of a non-existent or fatally defective claim must be set aside.
The Xin Chang ShuHigh CourtYes[2016] 1 SLR 1096SingaporeCited for the principle that a warrant of arrest can be set aside so long as the court is satisfied that there is no legal and/or factual basis to support the arrest of the vessel.
The Jeil CrystalHigh CourtNo[2021] SGHC 292SingaporeThe High Court decision being appealed.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123, 2001 Rev Ed)Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Warrant of Arrest
  • Action in Rem
  • Bill of Lading
  • Amendment of Claim
  • Admiralty Jurisdiction
  • Material Non-Disclosure
  • Relation Back Rule

15.2 Keywords

  • Admiralty
  • Shipping
  • Arrest Warrant
  • Amendment
  • Bill of Lading
  • Singapore
  • Court of Appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Admiralty and Maritime Law90
Shipping70
Civil Practice50
Arbitration30

16. Subjects

  • Admiralty and Shipping
  • Admiralty Jurisdiction
  • Practice and Procedure
  • Civil Procedure
  • Amendments