“Further to an abortive sale, the Sheriff sold the arrested vessel pursuant to clause 16 (b) of the Conditions of Sale "If the Buyer fails ... to make any one of the payments... the Sheriff... may... forfeit all payments made by the Buyer...". Although the sale contract was made between the Sheriff and the Buyer, the Court found that the forfeited sums in the earlier abortive sale should be treated as part of the proceeds of the judicial sale of the vessel. They could not be retained by the Sheriff for public benefit as the Sheriff did not contract on behalf of the State but for the benefit of the parties interested in the arrested vessel and the title to the vessel rested with the shipowner.”

“A shiprepairer's standard terms (referred to in its quotation for engine overhaul) prevailed over the terms of its tug-owner customer (referred to in the latter's purchase order, issued after its verbal go-ahead). Nevertheless, the shiprepairer's clause excluding liability for consequential loss (and limiting recovery to the value of work) neither precluded nor limited the direct losses claimed as a result of damage sustained during testing, namely engine repair, substitute tonnage and loss of use.”

“The High Court recently clarified that under Singaporean law vessel arrest for the purpose of retaining security in support of foreign proceedings is not available. Charterers pursuing litigation in England were ordered to return the security obtained as the arrest was declared an abuse of process. The Owners' damages claim for wrongful arrest was dismissed as the Charterers' behaviour did not amount to bad faith or malice, nevertheless, Charterers were ordered to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings. This is a significant difference from the position in England where courts have the power to order the arrest of property in assistance to foreign proceedings.”