THE "REECON WOLF"

[2012] SGHC 22, High Court of Singapore, Belinda Ang Saw Ean J, 31 January 2012

Admiralty - Conflict of laws - Forum non conveniens - Collision - Multiplicity of proceedings - Whether the proceedings in Singapore should be stayed

The claimant's vessel, Capt Stefanos, collided with the defendant's vessel Reecon Wolf  in the Straits of Malacca. The defendant commenced an in rem action in Malaysia and arrested Capt Stefanos; the claimant, wishing to found jurisdiction in Singapore, commenced an in rem action in Singapore and arrested Reecon Wolf. Both vessels were released against tender of letters of undertaking; however the in rem proceedings continued. The claimant applied to stay the action in Malaysia in favour of Singapore which had been dismissed by the Malaysian court. The defendant applied to stay the action in Singapore in favour of Malaysia which had been refused by the Assistant Registrar. The defendant appealed against this decision. The issue in this case was whether Singapore or Malaysia was the appropriate forum for the dispute arising from collision.  The judge considered the principles established in Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd ( The Spiliada) [1987] 1 Lloyd's Rep 1; [1987] AC 460 to decide whether to stay proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens. These principles involved two stages: identifying a forum that is clearly and distinctly more appropriate than Singapore (stage 1) and the factors to be considered included inter alia litigation expenses to be incurred by the parties, place where the tort is committed and multiplicity of proceedings. If the court concluded that there is prima facie such an appropriate forum, it would ordinarily grant a stay unless there were circumstances justifying that it should not be granted (stage 2). The judge further considered the concern for international comity in forum non conveniens principles which was founded upon avoiding the risk of inconsistent judgments by giving way to the other court ( Q&M Enterprises Sdn Bhd v Poh Kiat [2005] 4 SLR(R) 494 and The Abidin Daver [1984] 1 Lloyd's Rep 339 considered). The judge commented that neither Singapore nor Malaysia were an appropriate forum insofar as convenience of witnesses was concerned as they would have to travel in both cases to give evidence. Furthermore whether the reports or other documents issued before or after the collision were originally from Singapore or Malaysia was not relevant to establish an appropriate forum given that disclosure of documents would take place either in Singapore or Malaysia.