Changes

From DMC
Jump to: navigation, search

The Bunga Melati 5

4 bytes removed, 18:49, 25 November 2012
no edit summary
To invoke the Court’s admiralty in rem jurisdiction, the plaintiff is only required to prove the jurisdictional facts set out in Section 4(4) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act on a balance of probabilities.
[Note: In this case, the Singapore Court considered a number of issues apart from the invoking of the admiralty in rem jurisdiction of the Court, which are beyond the scope of this summary. The focus of this summary is on the Singapore Court’s commentary on the steps and standards of proof for a plaintiff to invoke the Court’s admiralty in rem jurisdiction. This represents a development in Singapore’s admiralty law, and would be of particular interest to, and significance for both current and prospective admiralty litigants.]
This note has been contributed by Ng Weiting, LLB (Hons), Associate at Ang & Partners, international contributors to the website for Singapore.
(4)…Where -
(a) the claim arises in connection with a ship; and
 
(b) the person who would be liable on the claim in an action in personam (referred to in this subsection as the relevant person) was, when the cause of action arose, the owner or charterer of, or in possession or in control of, the ship,
An an action in rem may (whether or not the claim gives rise to a maritime lien on that ship) be brought in the High Court against – …
(ii) any other ship of which, at the time when the action is brought, the relevant person is the beneficial owner as respects all the shares in it.
13. The Plaintiffs appealed from the decision of the Judge.
 
'''Judgment'''
Retrieved from ‘https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/732’

Navigation menu