Sin Heng Long Metal v An Ji Jiang: Voyage Charterparty Dispute over Vessel Inspection and Contract Termination
In 2003, the High Court of Singapore heard the case of Sin Heng Long Metal Pte Ltd v An Ji Jiang, concerning a dispute over a voyage charterparty. Sin Heng Long Metal chartered An Ji Jiang's vessel to transport bitumen but cancelled the contract before loading, claiming the vessel failed inspection. An Ji Jiang counterclaimed for wrongful termination. The court, presided over by Justice Judith Prakash, dismissed Sin Heng Long Metal's claim, finding that the Asbatankvoy terms were incorporated into the charter and that the inspection clause did not obligate An Ji Jiang to ensure the vessel's approval. The court granted An Ji Jiang's request for rectification of the fixture note.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Plaintiffs' claim dismissed; rectification of the fixture note granted to the defendants.
1.3 Case Type
Admiralty
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Sin Heng Long Metal cancelled a charter with An Ji Jiang, alleging breach due to failed refinery inspection. The court dismissed Sin Heng Long Metal's claim.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sin Heng Long Metal Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| An Ji Jiang | Defendant | Corporation | Rectification of Fixture Note Granted | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Judith Prakash | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Scott Thillagaratnam | Ramdas & Wong |
| Toh Kian Sing | Rajah & Tann |
| Chia Song Yeow | Rajah & Tann |
4. Facts
- Sin Heng Long Metal chartered An Ji Jiang's vessel to carry bitumen from Singapore to Haikou, China.
- The charterparty included a clause stating the vessel was subject to refinery inspection prior to acceptance and berthing.
- Sin Heng Long Metal cancelled the charter before loading, claiming the vessel failed to obtain SRC approval.
- An Ji Jiang argued the inspection clause did not guarantee approval and counterclaimed for wrongful termination.
- The vessel arrived in Singapore on July 14, 2001, and was subsequently arrested by a third party.
- The vessel cleared the HSE inspection on 17 July 2001 but was not approved for berthing due to a potential connection problem.
- The plaintiffs cancelled the charterparty on 19 July 2001.
5. Formal Citations
- An Ji Jiang, AM 600300/2001, [2003] SGHC 224
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiffs concluded two contracts with China Construction International Corporation (S) Pte Ltd to sell bitumen. | |
| Billion Gain sent LOP the defendants’ revised offer for four shipments of a maximum 4,200 metric tons per shipment on a continuous basis. | |
| Plaintiffs accepted the terms offered. | |
| Plaintiffs confirmed sub terms lifted and clean fixed. | |
| Billion Gain sent LOP a document entitled ‘Fixture Note’ which was to be signed by both the plaintiffs and the defendants. | |
| The vessel arrived in Singapore. | |
| The vessel was released from arrest. | |
| SRC approval for the vessel was given. | |
| Defendants tendered a notice of readiness to the plaintiffs. | |
| Plaintiffs sent the defendants a letter rejecting the notice of readiness and cancelling the entire fixture note. | |
| Defendants accepted that the charter had come to an end. | |
| Plaintiffs started this action and arrested the vessel. | |
| Defendants chartered the vessel to Standard Tankers Bahamas Ltd. |
7. Legal Issues
- Incorporation of Asbatankvoy Terms
- Outcome: The court found that the Asbatankvoy terms were incorporated into the charter contract.
- Category: Substantive
- Interpretation of Inspection Clause
- Outcome: The court held that the inspection clause did not impose an obligation on the defendants to ensure the vessel's approval by SRC.
- Category: Substantive
- Wrongful Termination of Charterparty
- Outcome: The court determined that the plaintiffs' termination of the charterparty was wrongful.
- Category: Substantive
- Damages for Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court did not award substantive damages to the defendants due to insufficient evidence of their losses.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Rectification of Fixture Note
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Wrongful Termination of Charterparty
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Admiralty
- Shipping
- Charterparties
11. Industries
- Shipping
- Oil and Gas
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frederick E Rose (London) Ltd v William H Pim Jnr & Co Ltd | Queen's Bench | Yes | [1953] 2 QB 450 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that rectification requires showing complete agreement on contract terms, wrongly written down due to error. |
| Kok Lee Kuen v Choon Fook Realty | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR 182 | Singapore | Cited for the degree of probability required to establish that the contract had been written down wrongly was that of convincing proof. |
| Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Yngvar Hansentangen | N/A | Yes | [1976] 1 WLR 989 | N/A | Cited for the principle that contracts should be interpreted in their commercial context, considering the genesis, background, and market. |
| Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society | N/A | Yes | [1998] 1 All ER 98 | N/A | Cited for principles of contractual interpretation, including understanding the document's meaning to a reasonable person with relevant background knowledge. |
| Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1997] 3 All ER 352 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the background may enable the reasonable man to choose between the possible meanings of words which are ambiguous but even to conclude that the parties must have used the wrong words or syntax. |
| Smith v Dart | N/A | Yes | [1884] 14 QBD 105 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a cancellation clause gives the charterer a right to cancel the charterparty if the vessel is not ready by the cancelling date and is not a promise by the owner that the vessel will be ready by the stipulated date. |
| Fercometal SARL v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA | N/A | Yes | [1989] 1 AC 788 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the charterers’ right to cancel was an independent option, only exercisable if the vessel was not ready to load on or before the cancelling date and did not impose any contractual obligation upon the owners to commence loading by the cancellation date. |
| The Concordie C | N/A | Yes | [1985] 2 LLR 55 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the basis on which compensation is to be calculated is the actual difference in earnings between the voyage that should have taken place and that, if any, which replaced it. |
| Win Line (UK) Ltd v Masterpart (Singapore) Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR 98 | N/A | The judge followed the decision in The Concordie C [1985] 2 LLR 55. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Evidence Act (Cap 97) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Voyage Charterparty
- Asbatankvoy
- Inspection Clause
- Laycan
- Notice of Readiness
- Demurrage
- Fixture Note
- HSE Inspection
- Berthing Approval
- Sub Stem
15.2 Keywords
- charterparty
- bitumen
- vessel inspection
- contract termination
- admiralty
- shipping
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Shipping | 90 |
| Admiralty and Maritime Law | 90 |
| Voyage charterparties | 80 |
| Carriage of goods by sea | 80 |
| Breach of Contract | 70 |
| Contract Law | 70 |
| Damages | 60 |
| Collections | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Admiralty
- Shipping
- Contract Law
- Charterparty Dispute