On 6 January 1973, the Atlantic Faith and the Anson collided with one another, resulting in the deaths of ten seafarers on board the Anson.

On 23 June 1977, the dependents of the ten deceased seafarers (the plaintiffs) commenced an action in rem against the owners of the Atlantic Faith (the defendant) for loss and damage suffered by the plaintiffs. On the same day, the plaintiffs arrested the Atlantic Faith. 

As s 8(1) of the Maritime Conventions Act 1911 (the MCA) provides for a two-year limitation period for claims relating to collisions, the plaintiffs' claim was technically time barred by 6 January 1975. The plaintiffs therefore filed a motion for an extension of time under s 8 of the MCA. Section 8 of the MCA is broadly equivalent to art 7 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law with respect to Collisions between Vessels 1910 (Collision Convention 1910). 

The defendant argued that: (i) the claim was time barred; and (ii) the High Court had no jurisdiction to hear the claim because the plaintiffs wrongly relied upon the wrong head of claim under s 3(d) instead of s 3(f) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Act), which are broadly equivalent to arts 1.1.a and 1.1.b of the International Convention Relating to the Arrest of Sea-Going Ships 1952 (Arrest Convention 1952). The defendant therefore applied to set aside the plaintiffs' action. 

Held: The plaintiffs' application is allowed; and the defendant's application is dismissed. 

On the issue of the limitation period and time bar, s 8(3)(b) of the MCA states, among other things, that if there was no reasonable opportunity of arresting the defendant ship: (i) within the jurisdiction of the High Court; or (ii) within the territorial waters of the country to which the plaintiff’s ship belongs or in which the plaintiff resides or has its principal place of business, the High Court may extend the limitation period to an extent sufficient to give such reasonable opportunity. The court held that there was no reasonable opportunity to arrest the Atlantic Faith and to serve the writ because:

1. Although the Atlantic Faith was in Singapore (and therefore within the jurisdiction of the High Court) for repairs from 12 January 1973 to 21 March 1973, the plaintiffs were unaware of the circumstances of the collision and the plaintiffs were not able to obtain any reliable information of the collision within a period of three months after the incident. 
2. Although the Atlantic Faith was also in Singapore in March 1977 and May 1977 before the arrest in June 1977, there was no evidence to suggest that the plaintiffs had been dilatory in commencing an action or arresting the ship during the period from March 1977 to May 1977. 
3. There was no evidence to suggest that the Atlantic Faith called at the jurisdiction in which the plaintiffs resided in, ie Greece or Yemen. There was an allegation that the Atlantic Faith did call in Greece in February 1976 but this would not have made a difference because the Greek courts do not have the power to extend the limitation period.  

By reason of the above, the High Court allowed the plaintiffs' application to extend the limitation period. 

On the second issue where the plaintiffs allegedly relied on the wrong head of claim, it was held that the plaintiffs' claim for loss and damage arising out of loss of life could fall under both s 3(d) and 3(f) of the Act. Section 3(d) covers claims for damage done by the ship and s 3(f) covers claims for loss of life or personal injury sustained in consequence of, among others, any wrongful act, neglect or default of the owners of a ship. It was clear that the plaintiffs' damages for loss of life stems from the damage done by the ship under s 3(d) and the High Court accordingly dismissed the defendant's application. 

The court also clarified that a claim for damage done by a ship gives rise to a maritime lien; hence, the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction would be under s 4(3) and not s 4(4) of the Act.