archive-sg.com » SG » S » SINGAPORELAW.SG

Total: 820

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Pan United Shipping Pte Ltd v Cendrawasih Shipping Pte Ltd[2004] SGHC 32
    R pointed out Mere words of letting and hiring will not of themselves invest a party with the possession of the ship if the other provisions of the instrument and the nature of the contract qualify and restrain the words and shew that the hiring and letting were not used in their positive sense and signification but as mere terms of contract for the whole capacity and use of the vessel and not as words of demise of the entire hull of the ship 9 In the present case Cendrawasih failed to establish that the ASP 1 and the Samudra Perkasa II had been demised to PT Armada No satisfactory explanation was given as to why the existence of the alleged demise charterparty of 19 July 2000 was not revealed until October 2002 more than two years after the grounding of the vessels in question and why the plaintiffs counsel were finally shown the alleged demise charterparty only on 2 December 2002 after repeated requests to inspect it 10 Cendrawasih s director and main witness Mr David Sng who claimed to have signed the alleged demise charterparty on 19 July 2000 testified unsurprisingly that he signed only one charterparty for the demise of ASP 1 and the Samudra Perkasa II on that day However Pan United s counsel Mr Gan pointed out to Mr Sng that the original charterparty dated 19 July 2000 that was tendered to the court was totally different from a copy of a charterparty also dated 19 July 2000 found in the defendants bundle of documents This took Mr Sng aback and when asked why he claimed to have signed only one charterparty when he had signed two charterparties for the demise of the two vessels on the same day he took a long time to think before saying that he had made a mistake and that PT Armada s director who also signed both charterparties had made a similar mistake This led Mr Gan to suggest that Mr Sng signed charterparties as and when he was asked by his counsel to submit documents for the purpose of the trial and that the documents that purportedly evidenced the existence of a demise charterparty were not genuine 11 Whether or not one of the two demise charterparties allegedly signed on 19 July 2000 was a mistake it should be noted that many of the important obligations assumed by the demise charterer under both versions of the alleged demise charterparty of 19 July 2000 were performed by Cendrawasih and not by PT Armada The assumption by a shipowner of obligations which ought to have been assumed by the charterer under a demise charterparty has been taken as an indication that the charterparty if entered into is not one by demise see for instance Boustead v Clarke 1835 Straits Law Reports 391 and D Almeida v Gray 8 supra although it ought to be borne in mind that the fact that some restrictions have been put on the use

    Original URL path: http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/case-law/cases-in-articles/shipping/1431-pan-united-shipping-pte-ltd-v-cendrawasih-shipping-pte-ltd-2004-sghc-32 (2016-01-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Sunlight Mercantile Pte Ltd and Another v Ever Lucky Shipping Co Ltd[2004] 1 SLR 171; [2003] SGCA 47
    fault on the part of the respondents and the appellants were obliged to contribute their share of the general average expenses The appellants who were dissatisfied with this ruling appealed against the trial judge s decision The appeal 12 As the contract for the carriage of the appellants deck cargo is outside the ambit of the Hague Visby Rules it ought to be borne in mind that at common law a shipowner has an absolute obligation to send his ship out to sea in a seaworthy state at the commencement of the agreed voyage In Atlantic Shipping and Trading Co Ltd v Louis Dreyfus Co 1922 2 AC 250 at 260 Lord Sumner explained the effect of this obligation on exceptions in the contract of carriage by sea in the following succinct terms Underlying the whole contract of affreightment there is an implied condition upon the operation of the usual exceptions from liability namely that the shipowners shall have provided a seaworthy ship If they have the exceptions apply and relieve them if they have not and damage results in consequence of the unseaworthiness the exceptions are construed as not being applicable for the shipowners protection in such a case 13 It is well established that an exception that is intended to relieve a shipowner from the consequences of the unseaworthiness of the vessel at the commencement of the voyage must be express pertinent and apposite per Bigham J in Sleigh v Tyser 1900 2 QB 333 at 337 Innumerable cases have shown how difficult it is to frame an exception that would be applicable in cases of unseaworthiness In Steel v State Line SS Co 1877 3 App Cas 72 at 89 Lord Blackburn gave an indication of what a shipowner might do to escape liability for unseaworthiness when he said as follows The shipowners might have stipulated if they had pleased We will take the goods on board but we shall not be responsible at all though our ship is ever so unseaworthy look out for yourselves if we put them on board a rotten ship that is your look out you shall not have any remedy against us if we do 14 In The Makedonia 1962 1 Lloyd s Rep 316 one of the rare cases where an exception was applicable even though loss was caused by unseaworthiness the exception in question was almost as exhaustive as that suggested by Lord Blackburn It provided as follows T he carrier shall not under any circumstances of any kind whatsoever be liable for any loss of or damage or delay thereto whether or not such loss damage or delay may be due to the act neglect or default of the carrier or the master pilot officers crew stevedores or other person whomsoever for whom the Carrier may be responsible whether in the service of the Carrier or not and whether or not the above named vessel was unseaworthy at the time of loading or sailing or at any other time 15 In contrast in most other cases less exhaustively worded exceptions have proved to be ineffective where loss was caused by unseaworthiness In Nelson Line Liverpool Ltd v James Nelson Sons Ltd 1908 AC 16 a cargo of meat arrived at its destination in a damaged condition because of the unseaworthiness of the ship which resulted from the shipowners agents negligence The shipowners sought to rely on an exception which provided that they were not liable for any damage or detriment which is capable of being covered by insurance It was held that this exception did not apply where loss has resulted from unseaworthiness Lord Loreburn agreed that the exception appeared to excuse the shipowners from every imaginable liability that could be covered by insurance However in his view the clause was so ill thought out and expressed that it was not possible to be sure what the parties intended to stipulate He reiterated that while shipowners may contract themselves out of their duty to provide a seaworthy ship they cannot do so by producing language which may mean that and may mean something different 16 In Ingram and Royle Ltd v Services Maritimes du Treport Ltd 1913 1 KB 538 the defendants carried the plaintiffs cargo of mineral water on board their ship which was unseaworthy when she commenced on her voyage because she also carried a large quantity of improperly stowed cases of metallic sodium which was dangerous if mixed with water When the ship encountered rough weather several cases of metallic sodium broke loose and came into contact with water As a result there were explosions and a fire on board the ship which was lost together with her cargo As the cases of metallic sodium had broken loose because they had been stowed with insufficient care a question arose as to whether the shipowners could rely on an exception in the bill of lading which provided that the shipowners were not responsible for any neglect of the officers in the stowing of the ship Scrutton J held that this exception was only applicable if the ship had been seaworthy at the commencement of the voyage In his view this exception was restricted to situations where negligent stowage damaged cargo without rendering the ship unseaworthy 17 In the present case the respondents who relied on Langley J s decision in The Imvros 1999 1 Lloyd s Rep 848 contended that the words howsoever arising and howsoever caused in the exceptions in the bills of lading enabled them to avoid liability for loss caused by unseaworthiness In The Imvros a vessel which was on a trip charter carried a cargo of sawn timber in bundles from Brazil to Durban Kohsichang and Manila in that order The charterparty required that bills of lading issued for deck cargo include a clause to the effect that the cargo was carried on deck at Shippers risk without responsibility for loss or damage however caused Some of the cargo of timber was

    Original URL path: http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/case-law/cases-in-articles/shipping/1427-sunlight-mercantile-pte-ltd-and-another-v-ever-lucky-shipping-co-ltd-2004-1-slr-171-2003-sgca-47 (2016-01-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Golden Shore Transportation Pte Ltd v UCO Bank and Another Appeal[2004] 1 SLR 6; [2003] SGCA 43
    alia the example of the phrase no claims for shortage or damage will be considered by the carrier and argued that if the word claims were to be substituted by suits the phrase would not make sense 17 UCO also referred to cl 6 to argue that cl 17 does not relate to the institution of proceedings Clause 6 provides that claims for services by other vessels belonging to the carrier wherever rendered may be adjudicated upon in the Singapore court whose decisions shall bind the owners of the goods In contrast cl 17 does not mention courts or adjudication Thus cl 17 could not be a jurisdiction clause Claims means nothing more than notification of loss or damage and the entire clause deals with notification and consideration of claims It has nothing to do with the institution of legal proceedings In any event if there is any ambiguity as to the scope of cl 17 the contra proferentum rule should apply Arguments of shipowners 18 Golden Shore adopted the interpretation accepted by the judge below that the word claims in the first sentence of cl 17 includes suits But it explained that not every reference to claim in cl 17 would necessarily include a suit much would depend on the context Golden Shore referred to the sentence no claims for shortage or damage will be considered by the carrier The word claims in that context could not mean suits 19 Golden Shore argued that sufficient regard must be given to the two key words in the first sentence of cl 17 claims and determination The word determination means adjudication That sentence required all suits under the B L to be determined at the port of delivery only The authorities 20 Golden Shore relied upon the case of Maharani Woollen Mills Co v Anchor Line 1927 29 Ll L Rep 169 Maharani in support of its construction of cl 17 There the clause in question provided that a ll claims arising shall be determined at the port of destination according to British laws The goods were carried from Liverpool to Bombay The plaintiff brought an action in England But the shipowners asserted that the action must be instituted in Bombay and sought a stay The High Court ordered a stay which order was affirmed by the Court of Appeal Scrutton LJ the illustrious shipping law judge in a short judgment construed this clause to mean that disputes as to the condition of the goods and the damage done to them shall be settled where the goods are He said that he did not see any difficulty with the jurisdiction clause and it was reasonable to hold the plaintiff to his contractual term He construed the word claims to include disputes 21 In contrast UCO relied upon the Malaysian case of The Sinar Mas 1982 1 MLJ 279 for the construction of cl 17 There the clause was very similar to the present cl 17 and it read Claims Any claims that may arise hereunder must be made at the port of delivery for determination and settlement at that port only The Kuala Lumpur High Court construed this clause to have nothing to do with jurisdiction and its reasoning at 279 was as follows In Shorter Oxford Dictionary claims means a demand for something as due an assertion of a right to something In my view a claim in the context of Clause 17 does not amount to a litigation which according to the same dictionary means the action of carrying on a suit in law or equity legal proceedings and disputation Having regard to the judgments in The Fehmarn and The Adolf Warski I think there is a distinction between claims and disputes Clause 17 does not envisage any dispute on litigation It is confined to claims pure and simple as for example where a consignee wishes to claim for the goods under the Bill of Lading then it must be done only in Kuching which is the port of delivery I am therefore of the view that Clause 17 is not a jurisdiction clause or even a forum clause The court should not import extra words into Clause 17 so as to give it new meaning with regard to the intention of the contracting parties 22 As pointed out by the Judge the court in The Sinar Mas did not give consideration to the word determination in that clause Furthermore it is not clear why the court in The Sinar Mas relied upon The Fehmarn 1958 1 All ER 333 and The Adolf Warski 1976 1 Lloyd s Rep 107 and the Sniadecki In The Fehmarn the relevant condition was All claims and disputes arising under and in connexion with the bills of exchange shall be judged in the USSR The dispute was in relation to short delivery and contamination The Court of Appeal there did not examine the two words claims and disputes What can be said about that clause is that the parties there had expressly used both terms 23 Similarly in The Adolf Warski Brandon J was in no sense construing the two words claim and dispute The case concerned two jurisdiction clauses in two different bills of lading The first provided that Any claim shall at the option of the Carriers be settled direct with the Carriers in Poland according to the Polish law to the exclusion of proceedings in the Courts of any other country The second provided that a ny dispute shall be decided in Poland according to Polish law except as provided elsewhere There was no doubt that these two clauses were jurisdiction clauses 24 We are unable to see how these two cases The Fehmarn and The Adolf Warski were germane to the interpretation of the jurisdiction clause in The Sinar Mas While it is clear that the word claim and the word dispute are different what each word means must depend on its context For example in the clause any claim shall be settled direct with the carriers in Poland according to the Polish law to the exclusion of proceedings in the courts of any other country in The Adolf Warski the word claim would surely include dispute 25 We would observe that the result reached in The Sinar Mas would also have been the same even if the court were to have held that the clause was an exclusive jurisdiction clause This is because as the judge there noted the clause could not be invoked in the circumstances of the case The contention there was that the action should have been filed in the Kuching High Court instead of the Kuala Lumpur High Court The judge effectively ruled there was no difference He said at 279 The carriage by sea was from Penang to Kuching Both ports are in Malaysia The High Courts in Borneo and States of Malaya have similar jurisdiction and adopt the same admiralty practice I am inclined to the view that a jurisdiction or forum clause does not apply to a litigation commenced in another court of similar jurisdiction and situated in the same country as the court envisaged by the parties to the contract 26 Another case which has been referred to by the parties is Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v Bhavani Stores Pte Ltd 1998 1 SLR 253 a decision of this court We do not think this case is helpful either There two adjacent clauses in an insurance policy read Claims are payable in India or Singapore in US dollars and In the event of loss or damages which may involve a claim under this insurance immediate notice thereof and application for survey should be given to agents in India The court rejected the suggestion that the first clause amounted to a jurisdiction clause The wording there is clearly different from that in the first sentence of our cl 17 Moreover in relation to an insurance claim notification to the insurer is a standard feature to enable the insurer to conduct investigations While we recognise that it is just as important for a carrier to conduct investigation into a claim for loss or damage to cargo there is no compelling reason why the carrier must be notified at the port of delivery 27 Another case Golden Shore relied upon is The Media 1931 41 Ll L Rep 80 where the clause read All claims arising under this bill of lading shall be determined at the port of destination of the goods according to British law or at the shipowners option they shall be determined in the UK and to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of any other country There was no dispute in the case that that was an exclusive jurisdiction clause with only one exception that the shipowner would have the option to have any dispute determined in the UK What is of interest about the clause is that its first half is similar to the first sentence of cl 17 in the present case However we recognise the last limb of the clause in The Media removed any possible doubt that it was a jurisdiction clause Our opinion 28 Though the clauses in Maharani and The Media are not identical with cl 17 as there is no reference in cl 17 itself to governing law or the exclusion of the jurisdiction of another country they are similar in significant respects In both Maharani and The Media the word claims was effectively held to encompass suits or disputes A claim means a demand for something as due or an assertion of a right to something A claim can be manifested in various forms It can take the form of a letter or an action There is no reason why a claim in the form of an action or suit could not come within the meaning of the first sentence 29 Another word of importance in the first sentence is determination To suggest that the sentence only imports the concepts of notification and investigation is to ignore the plain words there and give no sense at all to it 30 Turning to the argument on the last sentence of the first paragraph of cl 17 where the word suit appeared we would say it reinforces the view that the scope of the first sentence is much wider than just notification and investigation At this juncture it may be instructive to see what the second and third sentences in the paragraph say The second sentence puts a cap as to the carrier s liability for loss or damage The third sentence deems the goods delivered in proper condition unless notification was given at the time of delivery or within three days if the loss or damage be not apparent We should think that with this sentence there would have been no need to have the first sentence if all that the first sentence means is to give notification The fourth sentence which is also the last sentence of the paragraph prescribes a limitation period of one year As the Judge rightly found the word suit was more appropriate in the context of that last sentence Indeed the second third and fourth sentences were adopted from cl 6 of the Hague Rules The three sentences either cap or qualify the liability of the carrier 31 As for cl 6 of the B L while it is true that there there is an express reference to adjudication by the Singapore courts what is of interest to note is that the clause also uses the word claims and in the context the word claims would encompass actions or disputes precisely the sort of meaning which UCO sought to place on the word claims in cl 17 32 Thus we agree with the trial judge that the word claims in the first sentence should be construed to include suits and in our opinion even disputes A claim which is not met becomes a dispute which would require determination We would reiterate that if the first sentence is only meant to provide for notification as contended by UCO why have it at all when the third sentence clearly provides for notification Moreover that contention would have disregarded the word determination Accordingly we hold that the first sentence is an exclusive jurisdiction clause Whether a stay should be ordered 33 It is settled law that where a party seeks to bring an action in a Singapore court in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause he must show exceptional circumstances amounting to strong cause why the court should exercise its discretion in his favour and assist him in breaching his promise to bring the action in the contractual forum see The Jian He 2000 1 SLR 8 The burden to show such strong cause obviously rests with the plaintiff because prima facie he should be held to his contractual commitment The factors which a court will take into account in determining whether there is a strong cause were elaborated in The El Amria 1981 2 Lloyd s Rep 119 and adopted by this court in Amerco Timbers Pte Ltd v Chatsworth Timber Corporation Pte Ltd 1975 1977 SLR 258 They are a In what country the evidence on the issues of fact is situated or more readily available and the effect of that on the relative convenience and expense of trial as between the Singapore and foreign courts b Whether the law of the foreign court applies and if so whether it differs from Singapore law in any material respects c With what country either party is connected and if so how closely d Whether the defendants genuinely desire trial in the foreign country or are only seeking procedural advantages e Whether the plaintiffs would be prejudiced by having to sue in the foreign court because they would i be deprived of security for their claim ii be unable to enforce any judgment obtained iii be faced with a time bar not applicable here or iv for political racial religious or other reasons be unlikely to get a fair trial 34 The burden here is more than just establishing that Singapore is the more convenient forum to hear the case The principles applicable to a case involving an exclusive jurisdiction clause are different from those applicable to determining forum non conveniens see Citi March Ltd v Neptune Orient Lines Ltd 1997 1 Lloyd s Rep 72 at 76 per Colman J As this court noted in The Vishva Apurva 1992 2 SLR 175 at 182 In a case involving an exclusive jurisdiction clause the discretion of the court should not be exercised just by balancing the conveniences 35 In this case the factors which the judge took into account in coming to his conclusion that there is strong cause for refusing a stay are a that both parties were more closely connected with Singapore b that Singapore law is the governing law under the B L c that in respect of the main issue as to whether UCO had consented or acquiesced in the switching of the B L such as to preclude them from relying on the original bills the evidence is primarily to be found in Singapore and d that Golden Shore did not genuinely desire trial in India We should add that another factor which the judge had considered but ruled that it is neutral is the fact that the action has become time barred in India 36 Golden Shore in reliance on inter alia British Aerospace plc v Dee Howard Co 1993 1 Lloyd s Rep 368 Import Export Metro Ltd v Compania Sud Americana de Vapores SA 2003 1 Lloyd s Rep 405 and Ace v Zurich Insurance 2001 1 Lloyd s Rep 618 argued that many of the factors considered by the judge relating to matters of convenience should not carry much weight as they are not exceptional indeed they were all foreseeable Here counsel for Golden Shore relied upon the words of Rix LJ in Ace at 630 If a party agrees to submit to the jurisdiction of the courts of a state it does not easily lie in its mouth to complain that it is inconvenient to conduct its litigation there 37 Golden Shore also submitted that there was no basis for the judge to hold that it has no genuine desire for a trial in India It has raised several defences to UCO s claim among which is the Defence that UCO consented or acquiesced to the switching of the original bills Our analysis 38 As far as the first and second factors mentioned in 35 above are concerned namely that the parties are more connected with Singapore and the governing law of the B L was Singapore law while these two factors would favour a trial in Singapore we recognise that they are not exceptional matters Accordingly the weight to be given to these two factors would have to be limited as they were known to the parties at the time of the contract and notwithstanding such knowledge they had nevertheless provided in the B L that the contractual forum should be India 39 As regards the third factor it is on balance true that the evidence relating to the main Defence of consent is to be found more in Singapore We note that physically two witnesses will be in India One is Mr S Srinivasan UCO s then Manager for Credit Sanction who is now there But UCO have undertaken to bring him to Singapore for the trial So Mr Srinivasan must effectively be treated as being in Singapore The other is the Managing Director of SOM Sood who is now residing in India He dealt with UCO Golden Shore submitted that if the trial were to be held in Singapore it would not be able to compel Sood to attend the trial here But his evidence may still be obtainable in India pursuant to O 39 of the

    Original URL path: http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/case-law/cases-in-articles/shipping/1426-golden-shore-transportation-pte-ltd-v-uco-bank-and-another-appeal-2004-1-slr-6-2003-sgca-43 (2016-01-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Shipping
    Speeches Publications Online References Sample Clauses Directory of Law Practices Latest Singapore Rankings Events Upcoming Events Archive Events Archive 2013 Events Archive 2012 Shipping Display By Year select 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1989 1988 1977 The An Ji Jiang 2003 4 SLR 348 2003 SGHC 224 Decision Date September 29 2003 The 039 Rainbow Spring 039 2003 3 SLR 362 2003 SGCA 31 Decision Date July 29 2003 BNP Paribas v Bandung Shipping Pte Ltd Shweta International Pte Ltd and Another Third Parties 2003 3 SLR 611 2003 SGHC 111 Decision Date May 12 2003 The Cherry 2003 1 SLR 471 2002 SGCA 49 Decision Date November 12 2002 Bandung Shipping Pte Ltd v Keppel Tatlee Bank Ltd 2003 1 SLR 295 2002 SGCA 46 Decision Date October 30 2002 APL Co Pte Ltd v Voss Peer 2002 4 SLR 481 2002 SGCA 41 Decision Date October 3 2002 The Cherry and others 2002 3 SLR 431 2002 SGHC 68 Decision Date April 5 2002 The Arktis Fighter 2001 3 SLR 394 2001 SGHC 124 Decision Date June 4 2001 The Hung Vuong 2 2001 3 SLR 146 2000 SGCA

    Original URL path: http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/case-law/cases-in-articles/shipping?start=10 (2016-01-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Shipping
    Sample Clauses Directory of Law Practices Latest Singapore Rankings Events Upcoming Events Archive Events Archive 2013 Events Archive 2012 Shipping Display By Year select 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1989 1988 1977 The Arktis Sky 2000 1 SLR 57 1999 SGHC 197 Decision Date July 31 1999 Kuo Fen Ching and Another v Dauphin Offshore Engineering Trading Pte Ltd 1999 3 SLR 721 1999 SGCA 95 Decision Date July 2 1999 The Trade Resolve 1999 4 SLR 424 1999 SGHC 109 Decision Date April 29 1999 The Kiku Pacific 1999 2 SLR 595 1999 SGCA 96 Decision Date April 27 1999 The Dwima 1 1996 2 SLR 670 1996 SGHC 83 Decision Date April 22 1996 Samsung Corp v Devon Industries Sdn Bhd 1996 1 SLR 469 1995 SGHC 246 Decision Date October 26 1995 The Fierbinti 1994 3 SLR 864 1994 SGCA 74 Decision Date May 19 1994 The Damavand 1993 2 SLR 717 1993 SGCA 44 Decision Date May 31 1993 Pacific Electric Wire Cable Co Ltd and Another v Neptune Orient Lines Ltd Toko Kaiun Kaisha Ltd Third Party 1993 3 SLR 60 1993 SGHC 122 Decision Date

    Original URL path: http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/case-law/cases-in-articles/shipping?start=20 (2016-01-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Shipping
    Arbitration ADR Institutions Maxwell Chambers Singapore International Arbitration Centre Singapore International Mediation Centre Singapore Mediation Centre Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration ADR Publications Laws of Singapore Overview Commercial Law Case Law Cases in Articles Free Law Arbitration Cases Statutes Singapore Law Watch Headline News Commentaries Judgments Legislation Notices Directions Continuing Legal Education Resources Media Press Releases Speeches Publications Online References Sample Clauses Directory of Law Practices Latest Singapore Rankings Events Upcoming Events Archive Events Archive 2013 Events Archive 2012 Shipping Display By Year select 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1989 1988 1977 The Thomaseverett 1992 2 SLR 1068 1992 SGHC 216 Decision Date August 5 1992 The Evmar 1989 SLR 474 1989 SGHC 40 Decision Date April 20 1989 The Arcadia Spirit 1988 SLR 244 1988 SGHC 8 Decision Date January 19 1988 Amerco Timbers Pte Ltd v Chatsworth Timber Corp Pte Ltd 1975 1977 SLR 258 1977 SGCA 6 Decision Date August 5 1977 Page 4 of 4 Start Prev 1 2 3 4 Next End Display 5 10 15 20 25 30 50 100 All Overview Commercial Law Case Law Cases in Articles Agency Arbitration Company Conflict of Law

    Original URL path: http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/case-law/cases-in-articles/shipping?start=30 (2016-01-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Court of Appeal Judgments
    Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration ADR Publications Laws of Singapore Overview Commercial Law Case Law Cases in Articles Free Law Arbitration Cases Statutes Singapore Law Watch Headline News Commentaries Judgments Legislation Notices Directions Continuing Legal Education Resources Media Press Releases Speeches Publications Online References Sample Clauses Directory of Law Practices Latest Singapore Rankings Events Upcoming Events Archive Events Archive 2013 Events Archive 2012 Court of Appeal Judgments There are no

    Original URL path: http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/case-law/free-law/court-of-appeal-judgments?font-size=smaller (2016-01-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Arbitrability and Public Policy
    Case Law Cases in Articles Free Law Arbitration Cases Statutes Singapore Law Watch Headline News Commentaries Judgments Legislation Notices Directions Continuing Legal Education Resources Media Press Releases Speeches Publications Online References Sample Clauses Directory of Law Practices Latest Singapore Rankings Events Upcoming Events Archive Events Archive 2013 Events Archive 2012 Arbitrability and Public Policy 2014 3 SLR 815 Silica Investors Limited v Tomolugen Holdings Limited and others 1995 3 SLR

    Original URL path: http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/case-law/arbitration-cases/arbitrability-and-public-policy?font-size=smaller (2016-01-30)
    Open archived version from archive



  •