COSCO Shipping v PT OKI Pulp: Anti-Suit Injunction & Arbitration Agreement Scope
COSCO Shipping Specialized Carriers Co., Ltd. ("CSSC") sought an anti-suit injunction against PT OKI Pulp & Paper Mills ("OKI") to prevent OKI from pursuing proceedings in Indonesia related to damages to a trestle bridge. The General Division of the High Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of an arbitration agreement or exclusive jurisdiction agreement by OKI. The court determined that OKI's claim was a tort claim and not subject to arbitration. The court also found that Singapore was not the natural forum for the dispute.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Admiralty
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court dismisses COSCO's anti-suit injunction against PT OKI, finding no breach of arbitration or exclusive jurisdiction agreement.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COSCO Shipping Specialized Carriers Co, Ltd | Claimant | Corporation | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| PT OKI Pulp & Paper Mills | Defendant | Corporation | Application dismissed | Won | |
| COSCO Shipping Specialized Carriers (Europe) BV | Defendant | Corporation | Neutral | Neutral | |
| All other persons claiming or entitled to claim damage, loss, expense, indemnity arising out of contact between “LE LI” (IMO No. 9192674) and jetty/structure at Tanjung Tapa Pier on or about 31.05.22 | Defendant | Other | Neutral | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| S Mohan | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- CSSC owned the vessel LE LI.
- OKI owns and operates a port facility with a jetty and trestle bridge.
- The Vessel was chartered by CSSC to COSCO Europe.
- The Vessel was sub-chartered by COSCO Europe to OKI.
- Nine bills of lading were issued by CSSC to OKI.
- The Vessel made contact with the Trestle Bridge, causing it to collapse.
- OKI commenced proceedings against CSSC in Indonesia to claim for losses.
5. Formal Citations
- COSCO Shipping Specialized Carriers Co, LtdvPT OKI Pulp & Paper Mills and others, Admiralty in Personam No 50 of 2022 (Summons No 2676 of 2023), [2024] SGHC 92
- COSCO Shipping Specialized Carriers Co, Ltd v PT OKI Pulp & Paper Mills and others, , [2023] SGHC 149
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Head contract of affreightment between CSSC and COSCO Europe signed | |
| Sub-contract of affreightment between COSCO Europe and OKI signed | |
| Cargo loaded on board the vessel LE LI | |
| Incident occurred: Vessel LE LI made contact with the Trestle Bridge | |
| CSSC commenced action to limit its liability | |
| CSSC applied for a decree of limitation | |
| OKI filed its Notice of Intention to Contest | |
| OKI commenced proceedings against CSSC in Indonesia | |
| CSSC commenced arbitral proceedings against COSCO Europe in Singapore | |
| OKI applied for declarations that Singapore courts have no jurisdiction | |
| Hearing of SUM 3219 and SUM 4238 | |
| SUM 4238 dismissed | |
| OKI applied for leave to withdraw its NIC | |
| CSSC applied for an anti-suit injunction | |
| AR allowed OKI’s application to withdraw its NIC | |
| OKI filed the Notice of Withdrawal of its NIC | |
| CSSC commenced separate arbitral proceedings against OKI in Singapore | |
| RA 197 heard and dismissed | |
| Hearing of SUM 2676 | |
| SUM 2676 dismissed | |
| CSSC requested further arguments | |
| Further arguments heard | |
| Decision affirmed to dismiss SUM 2676 |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Arbitration Agreement
- Outcome: The court held that the Indonesian Proceedings were not brought in breach of the Arbitration Agreement.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Scope of arbitration agreement
- Whether a tort claim arises out of or in connection with a contract
- Related Cases:
- [2019] 2 SLR 372
- [2023] 1 SLR 1
- [2019] 1 SLR 732
- [2021] 2 SLR 753
- [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 8
- [2009] 3 SLR(R) 936
- [2016] 1 SLR 373
- [2007] UKHL 40
- [2016] 5 SLR 455
- [2021] 1 WLR 5475
- [2022] EWHC 1953 (Comm)
- [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 171
- [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 87
- [2023] UKSC 32
- [2008] 3 SLR(R) 1029
- [2024] SGHC(A) 8
- [2021] UKSC 45
- [2010] 1 SLR 1192
- [2015] 2 SLR 1020
- [2017] 3 SLR 357
- [2023] 1 SLR 349
- Breach of Exclusive Jurisdiction Agreement
- Outcome: The court held that no exclusive jurisdiction agreement had been concluded between the parties.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Formation of contract
- Offer and acceptance
- Anti-Suit Injunction
- Outcome: The court held that there was no basis for granting a non-contractual anti-suit injunction.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Vexatious and oppressive proceedings
- Natural forum
- Amenability to jurisdiction
- Related Cases:
- [1997] 2 SLR(R) 148
- [2007] 1 SLR(R) 377
- [2011] 1 SLR 391
- [2018] 5 SLR 425
- [2004] 2 SLR(R) 457
- [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 361
- [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 359
- [2022] 2 SLR 380
- [2022] EWHC 835 (Admlty)
- Protective Anti-Suit Injunction
- Outcome: The court held that the Indonesian Proceedings did not undermine the integrity of the Singapore courts’ jurisdiction, processes, and judgments.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Integrity of court processes
- Supervisory jurisdiction over arbitration
8. Remedies Sought
- Anti-suit injunction
9. Cause of Actions
- Tort
- Negligence
10. Practice Areas
- Admiralty
- Commercial Litigation
- Arbitration
11. Industries
- Shipping
- Pulp and Paper
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lakshmi Anil Salgaocar v Jhaveri Darsan Jitendra | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 372 | Singapore | Cited for the principles governing the court’s equitable jurisdiction to grant anti-suit injunctions. |
| BCS Business Consulting Services Pte Ltd and others v Baker, Michael A (executor of the estate of Chantal Burnison, deceased) | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2023] 1 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for the factors to be considered in deciding whether to grant an anti-suit injunction. |
| Sun Travels & Tours Pvt Ltd v Hilton International Manage (Maldives) Pvt Ltd | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 732 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that anti-suit relief should ordinarily be granted if foreign proceedings have been instituted in breach of an arbitration or exclusive jurisdiction agreement. |
| VKC v VJZ | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 753 | Singapore | Cited for the distinction between contractual and non-contractual anti-suit injunctions. |
| Pacific Molasses Co. and United Molasses Trading Co. Ltd. v Entre Rios Compania Naviera S.A. (The “San Nicholas”) | English Court | Yes | [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 8 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that where it is unclear which charterparty an incorporating clause refers to, the court should presume that the terms of the head charterparty are incorporated. |
| Insigma Technology Co Ltd v Alstom Technology Ltd | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 3 SLR(R) 936 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an arbitration agreement is to be construed like any other commercial agreement. |
| Tomolugen Holdings Ltd and another v Silica Investors Ltd and other appeal | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 373 | Singapore | Cited for the Fiona Trust or “one-stop shop” presumption. |
| Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation and others v Privalov and others | House of Lords | Yes | [2007] UKHL 40 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that parties, as rational businessmen, are likely to have intended any dispute arising out of the relationship into which they have entered to be decided by the same tribunal. |
| Rals International Pte Ltd v Cassa di Risparmio di Parma e Piacenza SpA | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 455 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Fiona Trust presumption is not to be applied irrespective of the context or the plain meaning of the words. |
| Eastern Pacific Chartering Inc v Pola Maritime Ltd (The Pola Devora) | English High Court | Yes | [2021] 1 WLR 5475 | England and Wales | Cited for the Causative Connection Test to determine if a pure tort claim falls within the scope of an exclusive jurisdiction clause. |
| Sea Master Special Maritime Enterprise v Arab Bank (Switzerland) Ltd | English High Court | Yes | [2022] EWHC 1953 (Comm) | England and Wales | Cited for alternative approaches to determining if a non-contractual claim falls within the scope of an arbitration clause. |
| The Playa Larga | English Court | Yes | [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 171 | England and Wales | Cited for the Closely Knitted Test, which considers whether the factual bases for tort and contractual claims overlap. |
| Aggeliki Charis Compania Maritima SA v Pagnan SpA (The “Angelic Grace”) | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 87 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the court must consider the substance of the claims and defenses in light of all the facts to ascertain if the dispute is properly referrable to arbitration. |
| Republic of Mozambique v Privinvest Shipbuilding SAL (Holding) | UK Supreme Court | Yes | [2023] UKSC 32 | United Kingdom | Cited for the two-step analysis in deciding if court proceedings have been brought by a party in breach of an arbitration agreement. |
| Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd v B Gold Interior Design & Construction Pte Ltd | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 1029 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an arbitration agreement must be interpreted having regard to the document as a whole and the relevant context. |
| Ollech David v Horizon Capital Fund | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2024] SGHC(A) 8 | Singapore | Cited for the 'default rule' and apply the lex fori as a matter of practicality. |
| FS Cairo (Nile Plaza) LLC v Lady Brownlie | UK Supreme Court | Yes | [2021] UKSC 45 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that if a party does not rely on a particular rule of law even though it would be entitled to do so, it is not generally for the court to apply the rule of its own motion. |
| Chan Chin Cheung v Chan Fatt Cheung and others | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 1192 | Singapore | Cited for the fact that the Court could take judicial notice of the fact that there was no material difference in approach between Singapore law and English law. |
| The “Chem Orchid” | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 1020 | Singapore | Cited for the presumption of similarity as between Singapore and English law. |
| BCY v BCZ | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 3 SLR 357 | Singapore | Cited for the prevailing choice of law framework. |
| Anupam Mittal v Westbridge Ventures II Investment Holdings | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2023] 1 SLR 349 | Singapore | Cited for the parties are presumed to have impliedly chosen the governing law of the contract to also govern the Arbitration Agreement. |
| Koh Kay Yew v Inno-Pacific Holdings Ltd | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 148 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that as long as a party submitted to the jurisdiction of the courts, by seeking relief in the local High Court or otherwise, this would answer the question whether the party was amenable to the jurisdiction of the court. |
| Rickshaw Investments Ltd and another v Nicolai Baron von Uexkull | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 377 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the natural forum for determining a tort claim is prima facie the place where the tort occurred. |
| JIO Minerals FZC v Mineral Enterprises Ltd | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 391 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court must look to any other substantial features of the case to determine if the presumption should be displaced. |
| Goldilocks Investment Co Ltd v Noble Group Ltd | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 425 | Singapore | Cited for the Securities and Futures Act 2001 could, given its regulatory nature, possibly operate as a forum mandatory statute, as with penal, revenue, and other public laws. |
| Evergreen International SA v Volkswagen Group Singapore Pte Ltd and others | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR(R) 457 | Singapore | Cited for the features of the principal dispute that are germane to the natural forum inquiry. |
| The Volvox Hollandia | English Court | Yes | [1988] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 361 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the right to claim limitation in any particular forum is a right that belongs to the shipowner alone and that choice is not to be pre-empted by a claimant. |
| Seismic Shipping Inc and another v Total E&P UK plc (The “Western Regent”) | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 359 | England and Wales | Cited for the purpose of an injunction is not to ensure that an English judgment is recognised by a friendly foreign state but to prevent unconscionable conduct. |
| VEW v VEV | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 380 | Singapore | Cited for the Whether there has been vexatious conduct involves an assessment and evaluation of a number of factors. |
| MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company SA v Stolt Tank Containers BV (The Flaminia) | English High Court | Yes | [2022] EWHC 835 (Admlty) | England and Wales | Cited for the Even if I took CSSC’s assertion at face value, it is for the Indonesian courts to decide what effect the Limitation Decree is to be given. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court 2021 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Merchant Shipping Act 1995 | Singapore |
| Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1972 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Anti-suit injunction
- Arbitration agreement
- Exclusive jurisdiction agreement
- Trestle bridge
- Limitation of liability
- Natural forum
- Vexatious and oppressive
- Incorporation clause
- Head contract of affreightment
- Sub-contract of affreightment
- Bills of lading
- Safe port warranty
- Negligent navigation
15.2 Keywords
- anti-suit injunction
- arbitration
- admiralty
- shipping
- contract
- jurisdiction
- Singapore
- Indonesia
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Anti-suit injunction | 90 |
| Jurisdiction | 80 |
| Arbitration | 75 |
| Shipping Law | 70 |
| Civil Procedure | 65 |
| Civil Litigation | 60 |
| Admiralty Law | 60 |
| Contracts | 50 |
| Breach of Contract | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Admiralty
- Arbitration
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Shipping Law