On 30 March 2016 the plaintiff charterer, DSA Consultancy (FZC), commenced an admiralty action in the High Court of London (the London proceedings) for the defendant owner’s wrongful termination of a charterparty for the plaintiff’s use of the Eurohope, which was governed by English law and contained an exclusive English jurisdiction clause. On 25 April 2016 the plaintiff issued a writ in rem and arrested the Eurohope to ‘obtain security in aid of [the London proceedings]’ and thereafter ‘apply for a stay of this action with the security in place, pending the determination of the [London proceedings]’. Article 1.1.d of the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to Arrest of Sea-Going Ships 1952 (Arrest Convention 1952), which includes ‘agreement[s] relating to the use or hire of any ship whether by charterparty or otherwise’ within the meaning of a maritime claim, is given indirect effect in Singapore via s 3(1)(h) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (HCAJA), which entitles the plaintiff to invoke the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court by commencing an action in rem (s 4(4) HCAJA). In the trial court the plaintiff succeeded in obtaining an order to stay all proceedings, with the security furnished by the defendant to remain in force, pending final determination of the London proceedings. The defendant appealed for the writ and/or warrant of arrest to be struck out and/or set aside, damages for wrongful arrest and in the alternative, for moderation of the security amount. The main issue in this appeal was whether the High Court’s admiralty jurisdiction under the HCAJA could be invoked by an action in rem for the sole purpose of obtaining security in aid of pending court proceedings in London. The secondary issue was whether damages should be awarded for wrongful arrest or wrongful continuance of arrest.

Held: The judge allowed the appeal to strike out the writ of summons and set aside the warrant of arrest against the Eurohope, but refused the defendant’s application for damages to be assessed for wrongful arrest or wrongful continuation of the arrest of the vessel.

The judge held that the power of arrest in an action in rem should not be exercised in aid of legal proceedings in a foreign court. Since the plaintiff’s action in rem was commenced for the sole purpose of arresting the Eurohope to obtain security in aid of the London proceedings, it was an abuse of process.

The court’s jurisdiction to arrest a ship in an action in rem is to provide security in respect of the action in rem, and not any other proceedings. An action in rem is a mode of exercise of the admiralty jurisdiction conferred on the High Court by s 3(1) HCAJA, and that jurisdiction is to ‘hear and determine’ the listed maritime claims under s 3(1), including s 3(1)(h). Furthermore, there is no statutory provision that empowers the Singapore courts to order that property arrested be retained for the satisfaction of a judgment given in foreign court proceedings.

As for the secondary issue, the judge did not award damages for wrongful arrest or wrongful continuation of arrest as the plaintiff’s behavior, in bringing the action or in rejecting any security offered for release of the vessel, taken as a whole was reasonable and did not amount to bad faith or malice.