On 20 June 2011, Gentian Shipping Inc’s (the plaintiff) vessel, the Melody, collided with Rigel Schiffahrts GmbH & Co KH’s (the defendant) vessel, the Orinoco Star, near Lagos Anchorage, Nigeria. Article 7 of the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law with respect to Collisions between Vessels 1910 (Collision Convention 1910), which time bars actions for the recovery of damages after an interval of two years from the date of the casualty, is given domestic effect in Singapore via s 8 of the Maritime Conventions Act 1911 (MCA). In this case the two-year limitation period stipulated in s 8(1) of the MCA had elapsed. Section 8(3) of the MCA provides that this limitation period may be extended by the court on a discretionary basis (s 8(3)(a)), or on a compulsory basis (s 8(3)(b)) where the court is 'satisfied that there has not during such period been any reasonable opportunity of arresting the defendant ship within the jurisdiction of the court, or within the territorial waters of the country to which the plaintiff’s ship belongs or in which the plaintiff resides or has his principal place of business, extend any such period to an extent sufficient to give such reasonable opportunity'. The plaintiff relied on the section 8(3)(b) compulsory limb. The specified relevant jurisdictions were Singapore, the Marshall Islands where the ship belonged, or Greece where the plaintiff had its principal place of business. The plaintiff’s submission was that section 8(3)(b) of the MCA was directly applicable, entitling the plaintiff to an extension of time. Because the Orinoco Star did not call at any of these jurisdictions between the limitation period from 21 June 2011 to 20 June 2013, the plaintiff had no opportunity to arrest the Orinoco Star. The defendant relied on commentaries and materials to support a purposive approach to interpretation of the Collision Convention 1910 and section 8 of the MCA, including the travaux préparatoires of the 1910 Convention and the UK House of Lords Hansard on 31 October 1911 which captured the Lords’ debate on the Maritime Conventions Bill. Although the judge accepted that a purposive interpretation approach was preferable, the judge was not persuaded that the purposive approach supported the defendant’s case.

Held: The requirements of s 8(3)(b) of the MCA had been met and the plaintiff was therefore entitled to an extension of time. The purpose of an extension under s 8(3)(b) is to give the plaintiffs a 'reasonable opportunity of arresting the vessel'. There were four occasions after the original limitation period when the Orinoco Star called at Singapore before its eventual arrest. In respect of each of these four occasions, the judge held that there was no reasonable opportunity for the plaintiff to arrest the Orinoco Star. For the first occasion, the period of 16 hours between the vessel’s arrival in Singapore waters after office hours on a Monday evening and its departure on Tuesday morning was not of sufficient duration to arrest the vessel. For the second and third occasions, the judge held that the parties had expressly agreed in the email correspondences to an extension of time for maritime actions to 20 December 2013 in order to facilitate negotiations. For the fourth occasion, even though the plaintiff arrested the Orinoco Star close to one week after the vessel arrived in Singapore, the judge did not regard the plaintiffs as acting in a dilatory manner that would dissuade the court from granting a discretion. After considering the circumstances leading to the arrest of the vessel on 6 December 2013, the judge granted an extension of the limitation period to 7 December 2013.