Background
PT Industri Nabati Lestari commenced an action in rem against the vessel then known as the “QIAN TAI 1,” alleging that a cargo of palm olein had been misdelivered in India without production of the original bills of lading. When the alleged misdelivery occurred on 5 September 2022, Star Dragon Shipping Ltd owned the vessel and OKA Tankers Pte Ltd was its demise charterer and the party potentially liable in personam.
The claimant filed the action on 27 July 2023 and arrested the vessel, by then renamed the “VAYU” and under new ownership, when it entered Singapore in November 2025. After the defendant failed to appear, the claimant obtained a default judgment for US$2,759,858.30 and an order for the vessel’s appraisal and sale. The current owner, Aquilo Shipping Inc, intervened and challenged the court’s jurisdiction under s 4(4) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act 1961, contending that OKA was no longer the vessel’s demise charterer when the action began.
The Court’s Holding
The High Court held that the intervention and jurisdictional challenge were not barred by the earlier default judgment. Although Aquilo had not included a standalone prayer directed specifically at that judgment, it sought to set aside the originating claim and all subsequent proceedings and orders. If admiralty jurisdiction had not properly arisen, setting aside the default judgment was a necessary consequence.
On the evidence, the claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that OKA remained the vessel’s demise charterer on 27 July 2023. The court found that a bareboat charter between Star Dragon and Arcis Global Merchants Pte Ltd existed and was in force from 24 March 2023, supporting the conclusion that Arcis had possession and control. OKA’s later assistance in coordinating and funding repairs did not establish that it retained possession and control of the vessel.
Because the person liable in personam was not the vessel’s owner or demise charterer when the action was brought, the statutory requirement for an action in rem under s 4(4) was not satisfied. The court set aside the default judgment, originating claim, warrant of arrest, and appraisal-and-sale order, and directed that the vessel be released from arrest.
Key Takeaways
- An arresting claimant must prove the jurisdictional facts required by s 4(4) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act on the balance of probabilities when those facts are tried.
- A default judgment does not preserve an action in rem where the court’s admiralty jurisdiction was never properly invoked.
- Continuing to arrange or pay for vessel repairs does not, without more, establish possession and control characteristic of a demise charterer.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that the status of the liable party must be established at both statutory points in time: when the cause of action arose and when the action in rem was commenced. A claimant cannot sustain an arrest merely by showing that the liable party was the demise charterer at the earlier date.
It also confirms that a current vessel owner may challenge the jurisdictional foundation of an arrest even after default judgment and a sale order have been entered. Where the jurisdictional conditions fail, the resulting judgment and enforcement orders may be set aside.