This matter was one of the last matters that I assisted Boaz Chan with at Incisive in 2022. Upon rejoining Incisive earlier this year, I was more than happy to continue working on the file as the matter proceeded to the Court of Appeal. From a maritime law perspective, there has long been a question of whether a jurisdiction who is a signatory to the LLMC will recognise a limitation fund set up in a non-LLMC jurisdiction. After all, it is reasonable for one to second guess the extra-territorial effect of limitation funds constituted within non-LLMC signatories since such funds are constituted pursuant to domestic legislation and not through international conventions. This case was such a case where our client had constituted a limitation fund in China, owing to a collision within Chinese waters. Liability proceedings were afoot in China. Upon application, the High Court held that proceedings in Singapore should be stayed in favour of Chinese Court proceedings on grounds of forum non conveniens and that security provided to release the vessel in Singapore should be returned / cancelled. The issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the the claimant was entitled to retain security after the Court had ordered that proceedings be stayed on grounds of forum non conveniens. The Court held that security ought not be retained in such cases. For those who are interested in the topic, I strongly urge you to read the High Court judgment in conjunction with the Court of Appeal judgment. Both judgments, when read together, appear to suggest that Singapore (being a signatory to the LLMC) will recognise limitation funds constituted in non-LLMC jurisdictions. This is because in forcing a shipowner to set up a limitation fund in Singapore would be contrary to a shipowner's right to claim limitation in its choice of forum: see Evergreen International SA v Volkswagen Group Singapore Pte Ltd and others [2004] 2 SLR(R) 457. This begs the questions - If this represents the correct position at law (i.e. that Singapore should not disturb a shipowner's right to claim limitation in its choice of forum), what then is the point of being a signatory to the LLMC if domestic legislation can still have extra-territorial effect and will ultimately be respected by other jurisdiction? That is a question I will think about during my next holiday. In the meantime, it is time to get back to work.
We are pleased to announce that Incisive Law LLC achieved a significant appellate victory in the case of The Sea Justice [2024] SGCA 32, where Incisive Law LLC successfully represented the Respondent, the owner of the vessel SEA JUSTICE, to resist an appeal in a critical admiralty and shipping dispute. This decision is a landmark in upholding the rights of shipowners to choose the forum for limitation. The judgment is significant for maritime practitioners and parties involved in cross-border collision disputes and provides clear guidance on the application of any stays on the basis of forum non conveniens, the effect of such a stay on an arrest and/or security paid into the Singapore courts, and issues arising from the application of different limitation regimes. The owner of the SEA JUSTICE was successfully represented in this appeal by Loh Wai Yue (Joint-Managing Director), John Seow (Head of Litigation), Ng Yuhui, Kunal Mirpuri कुणाल मिरपुरी and Gerry Zhang. Link to the judgment: https://lnkd.in/gennEXN4
Great work on the matter, and I appreciate these insights. Let's catch up over coffee.