COURTS (ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.43 p.m.

The Minister for Health and Law (Mr Byrne): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court at present derives from the jurisdiction and authority conferred on it by the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890, by virtue of section 17(c) of the Courts Ordinance (Chapter 3). Section 17(c) of the Courts Ordinance confers on the High Court the jurisdiction and authority of the Colonial Court of Admiralty. The Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890, in effect makes the High Court in Singapore a Court of Admiralty with the like jurisdiction over the like places, persons, matters and things as the High Court in England in Admiralty matters and where in any English Act relating to the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court in England reference is made to England and Wales, there shall be substituted the name of the British possession concerned when such Act is applied to a Colonial Court of Admiralty.

So far as Singapore is concerned, the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court is the Admiralty jurisdiction of the English High Court as it stood in 1890. We have therefore to look at the law as it stood in England in these matters before 1890 in relation to the maritime matters dealt with in this Bill. Most of these provisions have, in fact, been consolidated and re-enacted in section 22 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act. 1925, but the Act of 1925 does not apply to Singapore although its provisions in the matters relating to the present Bill are similar to those which are contained in the English Acts prior to 1890, which are the Admiralty Court Act, 1840, and the Admiralty Court Act, 1861.

In 1956 the Administration of Justice Act, 1956, was enacted in the United Kingdom in order to enable ratification of three international Conventions on maritime law signed at Brussels in 1952, to which the United Kingdom was a party. These Conventions were :-

(1) The International Convention on certain rules concerning Civil Jurisdiction in Matters of Collision;

(2) The International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to Penal Jurisdiction in Matters of Collision or other Incidents of Navigation; and

(3) The International Convention relating to the Arrest of Seagoing ships.

The first Convention relating to Civil Jurisdiction seeks to unify the law as regards the places in which the plaintiff may initiate proceedings in the case of any collision between ships and limits the jurisdiction of any State in this field. The Second Convention relating to Penal Jurisdiction in cases of collision seeks to prevent penal or disciplinary action being taken against the Master or crew of any seagoing ship except before the judicial or administrative authorities of the State whose flag the ship was flying. The adoption of this convention did not necessitate any amendment to English law because the United Kingdom have made a reservation empowering the taking of penal or disciplinary action if the State whose flag the ship was flying consents to such proceedings being taken in the United Kingdom.

The third Convention relating to the Arrest of Seagoing ships seeks to produce international uniformity in the law relating to the arrest of a ship to secure a claim. This Convention calls for amendment of English law to permit not only the ship in respect of which the claims arose to be arrested but also any other ship which was under the same ownership. This Convention necessitated the majority of the amendments included in the 1956 Act. The more important amendments, apart from the outstanding provision permitting the arrest of "sister" ships, are:-

(1) The right to arrest a ship where the ship was a passive cause.

Mr Speaker: Order. The interpreter has signaled that the Minister is going a bit too fast.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker. Sir, this is a very technical Bill, and a lot of technical phrases are being used.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Convention, that is the third Convention relating to the Arrest of Seagoing ships, necessitated the majority of the amendments included in the 1956 Act. The more important amendments, apart from the outstanding provisions permitting the arrest of "sister" ships, are:-

(1) The right to arrest a ship where the ship was a passive cause. For example, where a stevedore falls down the hold of a ship;

(2) To enable a mortgage to arrest a foreign ship. Formerly this could not be done.

The question has arisen whether these Conventions should be extended to Singapore. The Master Attendant and Local Shipping and Shipowners' Association favoured extension of these Conventions to Singapore on the ground that Singapore should, as a major port, follow international maritime practice, and that it would be in the interest of local shipping for this Government to adopt the same attitude to these Conventions as the Government of the United Kingdom. This Bill accordingly is designed to bring the law in Singapore into line with the provisions of Part I of the United Kingdom Administration of Justice Act, 1956, in order to enable the extension of these Conventions to Singapore, and has been cleared with the Hon. the Chief Justice and the Singapore Bar Committee since the matters affected by this Bill relate to the jurisdiction of High Court in admiralty matters.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will deal with the main clauses of the Bill now. Clause 3 (1) (c) seeks to provide that the High Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine a claim in respect of a mortgage or a charge on any ship or a share therein. Under existing law this jurisdiction is limited to claims where the ship in question is already under arrest by a process of the court or where the proceeds of sale thereof have been brought into court or to claims where the mortgage is already registered under the Merchant Shipping Acts as provided in sections 3 and 11 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861. This clause removes the requirement that a ship must already be under arrest before the mortgage can bring an action before the High Court. It also renders unnecessary the alternative requirement that the mortgage must be registered under the Merchant Shipping Acts before action can be brought. Section 22 (a) (ix) of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, similarly provides for jurisdiction in respect of any claim in respect of a mortgage of any ship being a mortgage duly registered in accordance with the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts or in respect of any mortgage of a ship which is, or the proceeds thereof are under the arrest of the court. This Act, of course, as I have said earlier does not apply to Singapore, but the provisions of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, to which I have already referred, contain substantially the same provisions. The English Administration of Justice Act, 1956, on which this Bill is modelled, has already made the amendments referred to in clause 3 (1) (c). I need hardly say that that the English Act of 1956 does not apply to Singapore, and that is the reason why this Bill is before the House.

Section 35 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, provides that jurisdiction may be exercised either by proceedings in rem or by proceedings in personam in respect of Admiralty claims dealt with in that Act. Clause 4 of this Bill provides similarly in respect of such claims.

Clause 3 (1) (f) seeks to provide that the High Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any claim for loss of life or personal injury caused by any ship or occurring in connection with the operation of any ship. The English Acts before 1890 made no similar provision for such claims to be determined in an Admiralty action -

Mr Speaker: Order. The same signal has come through. I do not know whether the Hon. Minister has supplied copies of his speech to the Interpreters.

Mr Byrne: No, I did not.

Mr Speaker: Perhaps the Minister will speak a little slowly.

Dato Abdul Hamid Bin Haji Jumat (Geylang Serai): Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification. I was listening to the Malay interpretation and I think the interpreter is ahead of the Minister! And surely they have copies.

Mr Speaker: The signal actually came from the Tamil interpreter. Perhaps the Minister will speak a little slower.

Mr Byrne: Clause 3 (1) (f) seeks to provide that the High Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any claim for loss of life or personal injury caused by any ship or occurring in connection with the operation of any ship. The English Acts before 1890 made no similar provision for such claims to be determined in an Admiralty action, and only the common law remedies lay against the responsible parties. In England, however, the Act of 1925 expressly made provision for the High Court in England to exercise Admiralty jurisdiction in respect of claims for loss of life or personal injuries. As this Act does not apply to us, there is no similar statutory provision which applies to Singapore. This clause 3(1) (f) makes it clear that the High Court can hear and determine such claims by virtue of its Admiralty jurisdiction, and a claim can proceed either in personam or, as clause 4 provides, in rem in cases where the person responsible is the owner, character, or in possession or control and was, at the time the action is brought, the beneficial owner of that ship or any other ship. In the case of his owning not the ship involved but another ship, an action in rem could be invoked against the latter. Thus even where a ship is the passive cause it can be arrested if the person responsible for the injury is its sole beneficial owner. This is in clause 4(4).

Clause 3 (1) (g) of this Bill seeks to provide for jurisdiction in respect of any claim for loss of or damage to goods carried in a ship, and clause 3 (1) (h) seeks to provide or claims arising out of any agreement relating to the carriage of goods in a ship or to the use or hire of a ship. The existing law contained in section 6 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, provides for jurisdiction in respect of claims for damage done to goods carried in a ship by negligence, misconduct or any breach of duty or breach of contract on the part of the owner, master or crew of the ship, unless the court is satisfied that at the time of the institution of the proceedings any owner or part-owner is domiciled within the jurisdiction. Section 22 (a) (xii) of the 1925 Act makes a similar provision. Thus both in England and in Singapore no such claims as these could be pursued if the owner or part-owner of the ship concerned possessed a domicile within the jurisdiction. Paragraphs (g) and (h) of clause 3 (1) seek to remove this restriction in order to conform to the Convention.

Clause 3 (1) (l) seeks to provide jurisdiction in respect of any claim relating to goods or materials supplied to a ship for her operation or maintenance. Under section 5 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, the High Court in Singapore has jurisdiction only in respect of a claim for necessaries supplied to a ship elsewhere than in the port to which the ship belongs, and even in such a case a claim cannot be pursued if the court is satisfied that the owner or part-owner of the ship is domiciled within the jurisdiction. These restrictions are sought to be removed to enable conformity with the Convention.

Clause 3 (1) (m) seeks to provide jurisdiction in respect of any claim relating to the construction, repair or equipment of a ship or dock charges or dues. Under the existing law contained in section 4 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, such jurisdiction is possessed only if at the time of the institution of the proceedings the ship in question is under arrest of the court. Section 22 (a) (x) of the 1925 Act contains a similar provision. This restriction, that the ship concerned is already under arrest, is sought to be removed.

Clause 3 (1) (p) provides for jurisdiction in respect of any claim arising out of an act which is or is claimed to be a general average act. This provision has no precursor in the existing law, nor did the Act of 1925 contain such a provision Only the common law remedies relating to carriage of goods by sea applied -

Mr Speaker: Order. Another signal from the Chinese Interpreter this time. I would suggest that if the Minister is making a prepared statement, he should supply the Interpreters with copies so that the interpretation could easily flow from the Interpreters. Perhaps the Minister could go a little slower.

Mr Byrne: Clause 3 (1) (p) provides for jurisdiction in respect of any claim arising out of an act which is or is claimed to be a general average act. This provision has no precursor in the existing law, nor did the Act of 1925 contain such a provision. Only the common law remedies relating to the carriage of goods by sea applied whereby competing interests in the ship, in freight and in cargo were liable proportionately in a general average contribution for losses arising in consequence of extraordinary sacrifices or expenses incurred for the preservation of the several interests involved. A shipowner, however, has a lien on the cargo for its contribution in general average, but the owner of the cargo in a ship has no corresponding right against a ship where he is a creditor in a General Average Adjustment. The third Convention provides for any claim in respect of a general average act to be a maritime claim which can be pursued against a ship, and this paragraph gives effect accordingly in order to comply with the Convention.

Clause 4 prescribes the manner in which Admiralty jurisdiction may be exercised and limits the action in rem to conform to the Arrest Convention. Sub-clause (4) of this clause provides that in certain cases claims are enforceable against "sister ships", i.e., ships held under the same ownership as the ship in connection with which the claim arose. The sister ship principle will allow foreign "sister ships" to be arrested here in the same way as our ships can now be arrested in foreign ports.

Clause 5 provides that the court may not entertain actions in person am on claims arising from collision between ships unless:

'(a) the defendant has his habitual residence or a place of business within the State of Singapore; or

(b) the cause of action arose within inland waters or within the limits of a port in Singapore; or

(c) an action arising out of the same incident is proceeding in court or has already been heard and determined in court.'

Notwithstanding non-compliance with the above requirements, the court will also have jurisdiction where the defendant submits to the jurisdiction of the court.

Clause 6 removes the restriction on claims for wages by the Master or the crew of a ship by repealing section 91 of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance to conform to the Arrest Convention. Section 91 at present provides that suits shall not be instituted in the High Court by a seaman for wages not exceeding $500 except (a) where the owner of a ship is bankrupt, or (b) where the ship is under arrest, or (c) where the District Court refers the claim to the High Court, or (d) where neither the owner nor the Master is or resides in Singapore.

Clause 7 excludes jurisdiction in cases falling within the Rhine Navigation Convention as the United Kingdom is not a party to that Convention.

Clause 8 repeals provisions inconsistent with the three Conventions signed at Brussels or which are re-enacted in the preceding clauses of this Bill. Section 480 of the Merchant Shipping Ordinance, which provides for the detention of foreign ships found within our territorial waters in respect of damage caused to the property of British subjects in any part of the world, is sought to be repealed in order to comply with the Conventions. Provision is also made for section 17 (c) of the Courts Ordinance, which confers the existing Admiralty jurisdiction on the High Court, to be read subject to the provisions of this Bill. Furthermore, this clause also provides that no proceedings in rem may be instituted against the Crown nor may any ship, aircraft cargo or other property belonging to the Crown be arrested, detained or sold.

Finally, clause 9 preserves causes of action arising before the coming into operation of the Bill.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly.

Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Byrne]

Bill considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Mr Speaker: It is time to suspend. I will take this Chair again at 5.35 p.m.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 5.05 p.m. until 5.35 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.35 p.m.