FOREIGN MARITIME LIENS AND LAW REFORM IN SINGAPORE

Introduction

The lack of uniformity between municipal maritime laws poses ‘serious legal and

practical difficulties’ for those dealing with maritime liens in the international

shipping context1. This paper submits that reforms to Singapore law are needed to

address these difficulties.

Problem with foreign maritime liens

The difficulties posed by maritime liens are twofold. Firstly, the terminology used to

describe the bundle of rights enjoyed by a maritime lienee (as understood under

Singapore law) varies between jurisdictions. In Singapore, a maritime lienee enjoys

‘an encumbrance over a ship or other res like cargo and freight’ which ‘accrues from

the moment the cause of action comes into being’, ‘travels secretively with the res’,

‘survives any change of ownership of the res’ and ‘is carried into effect by an action

in rem’2. He is also ‘accorded higher priority vis-à-vis other claimants such that he

enjoys a better chance of having his claim satisfied from the proceeds of sale for the

res’3. Contrastively, the bundle of rights approximate in nature to those

aforementioned is, inter alia, called ‘creances privilegiees’ in France and ‘preferential

debts against ships’ in the Netherlands4. Secondly, even if there is congruity in

terminology between two jurisdictions, there may still be divergence as to what types

of claimants deserve the status of a maritime lienee. In Commonwealth jurisdictions,

the concept of maritime lien is confined to a ‘small cluster’ of claims, being

‘seamen’s wages, master’s wages, master’s disbursements, salvage, damage done by a

ship, bottomry and respondentia’5. By comparison, the ‘concept of a maritime claim is

more widely received’ in ‘the United States and other civil law jurisdictions’6. Claims

for ‘necessaries and cargo damage, among others, are granted full status of maritime

1 D. R. Thomas, Maritime Liens, (London: Stevens & Sons, 1980) at Page 552 [Thomas]; Dr. P K Mukherjee, “The law of maritime liens and conflict of laws” (2003) 9 Journal of International Maritime Law at Page 545 [Murkherjee]2 Toh Kian Sing, Admiralty Law and Practice, 2d ed. (Singapore: LexisNexis, 2007) at Page 237 [Toh]3 Toh at Page 2374 Mukherjee at Page 5475 William Tetley, “Maritime Liens in the Conflict of Laws” in James A.R. Nafziger and Symen C. Symeonides, ed., Law and Justice in a Multistate World (New York: Transational Publisher, Inc. 2002) 437 at Page 443 [Tetley]; Thomas at Page 3086 Thomas at Page 552; Tetley at Page 443

liens by the relevant legislation and/or international conventions binding on these

States’7.

As such, complicated private international law questions arise when a claimant tries to

assert his bundle of rights created under foreign law (a foreign maritime lien) before

the Singapore High Court (SGHC). The first question is whether the SGHC has

admiralty jurisdiction under s. 3(1) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act

(HC(AJ)A) to hear the claim8. The second question is whether the SGHC should

recognize and enforce the foreign maritime lien. In this context recognizing the

foreign maritime lien means ascertaining ‘the legal consequences attributable under

the foreign law to the events on which the claim was founded’ and accepting ‘the

existence of the claimant’s legal rights as derived from the application of foreign

law’9. Enforcing the foreign maritime lien means allowing the claimant to invoke the

admiralty jurisdiction of the SGHC by bringing an action in rem under s. 4 of the

HC(AJ)A. The third question is how should the SGHC prioritize the foreign maritime

lienee’s claim to the proceeds of the sale of the res.

Current position in Singapore

The current legal position in Singapore with regards to these questions is that stated

by Lord Diplock in Halcyon10. Although Singapore courts are no longer bound by

previous decisions of the Privy Council (PC), such decisions remain persuasive11.

Lord Diplock held that the SGHC has admiralty jurisdiction to hear claims

‘wheresoever arising’ in relation to ‘all ships’ as long as these claims fall within s.

3(1) of the HC(AJ)A12. He opined that s. 3(1) of the HC(AJ)A is ‘exhaustive’13.

7 Tetley at Page 443; Commercial Instruments and Maritime Liens Act 46 U.S.C. ss3130 et seq; Art. 31 of Law No. 67-5 of Jan 3, 1967; Art. 4 of the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law Relating to Maritime Liens and Mortgages, 19268 High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap. 123, 2001 Rev. Ed. Sing.)9 CA Ying, “Priorities and the Foreign Maritime Lien” (1982) 8 Adelaide Law Review 95 at Page 96 [Ying]; T.A.G. Beazley , “Maritime Liens in the Conflict of Laws” 20 Malaya Law Review 111 at Page 112 [Beazley]; Williams and Humbert Ltd v. W. & H. Trade Marks (Jersey) Ltd. and Multinvest (U.K.) Ltd. and Others [1986] 1 A.C. 36810 Bankers Trust International Ltd v. Todd Shipyards Corp (The Halycon Isle) [1981] AC 221 at Page 239 [Halcyon]11 Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) [1994] SGCA 148 12 S. 3(4) of the HC(AJ)A13 Halcyon at Page 239

Lord Diplock also held that the SGHC will only recognize and enforce a foreign

maritime lien if ‘the events on which the claim is founded would have given rise to a

maritime lien’ under Singapore law as the lex fori14. He gave three reasons for this.

First, a maritime lien is procedural in nature. It is ‘devoid of any legal consequences

unless carried into effect by a legal process’15. Second, the court ‘must be able to act

with neutrality between competing creditors whose rights have been acquired under

different jurisdictions’16. Hence, it ‘would be unjust to give full effect to a creditor’s

rights acquired under a particular system of law to the detriment of other creditors’17.

Third, the categories of claims giving rise to maritime liens should be minimized.

This is because a maritime lien is an ‘unregistered encumbrance’ on a ship ‘capable of

binding’ ignorant third parties18. The recognition of foreign maritime liens would

‘exacerbate this problem’19.

Finally, Lord Diplock held that the SGHC will prioritize claims in accordance with

Singapore law as the lex fori. This is because ‘priorities as between claimants to a

limited fund are matters of procedure’20. Since the SGHC will only recognize and

enforce a foreign maritime lien if the events on which the claim is founded would

have given rise to a maritime lien under Singapore law as the lex fori, these foreign

maritime liens rank as maritime liens (as understood under Singapore law).

Reforms necessary

The current legal position in Singapore is undesirable. Firstly, the position in Halcyon

ignores the ‘substantive characteristics’ of the maritime lien21. The maritime lien

‘exists from the event creating it’ and may ‘accrue independent of personal liability’22.

It is enforceable against a bona fide purchaser, but only with regards to the property

14 Halcyon at Page 23815 Halcyon at Page 23416 Toh at Page 246; Halcyon at Page 23117 Toh at Page 246; Halcyon at Page 23118 Toh at Page 246; Halcyon at Page 24019 Toh at Page 24620 Halcyon at Page 23021 D. C. Jackson, Enforcement of Maritime Claims, 4th ed. (London: LLP: 2005) at Para 17.57 [Jackson]22 Republic of India and Another v. India Steamship Co. Ltd. (No. 2) [1998] A.C. 879 at Page 908

involved in the claim23. Additionally, if one were to adopt the approach taken by the

Australian High Court in Pfeiffer, it is difficult to see how the recognition of a

maritime lien can be properly characterized as procedural. It clearly ‘affects the

existence, extent or enforceability of the rights or duties of the parties to an action’24.

Secondly, the position in Halcyon means that the rights in a vessel are determined

significantly by ‘chance’25. Whether a claimant has a maritime lien or not depends on

the law of the ‘place where the ship is arrested’. This is fortuitous and limited to ‘one

of the countries that the vessel visits’26. Further, if ‘the ship is arrested by one

claimant, the other claimants have no choice about where the proceedings take

place’27. As a result, stakeholders in the shipping industry plan their businesses

‘unable to know with certainty the legal consequences of their actions’28.

Thirdly, the position in Halcyon contravenes the comity of nations. Comity in this

context means ‘the recognition which one nation allows to the legislative, executive

or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to international duty and

convenience, and to the interests of its own citizens’29. While comity is ‘not a matter

of absolute obligation’ under public international law, it is a necessity in these modern

times. This is because comity is crucial in facilitating ‘the flow of wealth, skills and

people across state lines a fair and orderly manner’30. It is important for a global city-

state like Singapore to exercise comity. A difficult aspect of comity is finding the

appropriate levels of ‘deference and respect’31. A right balance has to be struck

between foreign and domestic interests. In this regard, the position in Halcyon leaves

no room for balancing. Foreign creditors are wholly subjugated by Singapore law as

the lex fori. Furthermore, it perpetuates the impression that the Singapore courts are

23 Jackson at Para 17.5924 John Pfeiffer Pty Ld v. Rogerson (2000) 203 CLR 503 at Para 97 [Pfeiffer]25 John M. Kriz, “Ship Mortgages, Maritime Liens And their Enforcement: The Brussels Conventions of 1926 and 1952”, (1963) Duke Law Journal 671 at Page 67226 Martin Davies and Kate Lewins, “Foreign Maritime Liens: Should They be Recognized in Australian Courts?”, (2002) 76 The Australian Law Journal 775 at Page 781 [Davies]27 Davies Page 78128 Brian R Opeskin, “The Price of Forum Shopping”, (1994) 16 Sydney Law Review 14 at Page 2729 De Savoye v. Morguard Investments Limited v. Credit Foncier Trust Company [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1077 at Para 31 [Morguard] [emphasis added]; Poh Soon Kiat v. Desert Palace Inc (trading as Caesars Palace) [2009] SGCA 60 at Para 37 [Poh]30 Morguard at Para 3131 Poh at Para 37

chauvinistically protecting banks against ‘the impairment of their security’32. This

‘excessive regard to the interests of one party over others’ means that Singapore risk

becoming ‘unattractive to foreign shipping’33.

Thus, reforms are needed if Singapore is to continue to ‘enhance modern international

trade’34. It should be noted there are diverse stakeholders in the Singapore shipping

industry. Singapore ‘sits at the centre of a web of trade routes and is connected to

more than 600 ports in over 120 countries’35. It is a ‘top bunkering port’36. A wide

range of marine services is available in Singapore. These include pilotage, towage,

ship supplies and ship-repair facilities37. As of 2013, 4379 ships are registered on the

Singapore Shipping Registry38. Banks are heavily involved in the shipping business39.

Any reform must achieve an even-handed result between these stakeholders. The

suggested reforms can also be divided into four categories: (1) jurisdiction, (2)

recognition, (3) enforcement and (4) priorities.

Jurisdiction

This paper submits that Parliament should amend the HC(AJ)A to vest the SGHC

with the admiralty jurisdiction to hear any claim in respect of a foreign maritime

lien40.

The wide words ‘any claim in respect of a foreign maritime lien’ are used so that

admiralty jurisdiction in this regard will not be unduly restricted. There must

nevertheless be a ‘defined link’ between the claim and the foreign maritime lien41. It is

neither ‘necessary nor desirable’ to attempt to formulate ‘a more comprehensive

32 Michael Marks Cohen, “In Defense of Halcyon Isle”, (1987) Llyod’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 152 at Page 154 [Cohen]33 Civil Admiralty Jurisdiction (ALRC Report 33 1986) at Para 96 [ALRC Report]34 Myburgh PA “The Ship Supplier’s Lien: Taking a (Maple Leaf out of the Canadian Statute Book?” [2010] Asia-Pacific Law Review 279 [Myburgh]35 http://www.mpa.gov.sg/sites/maritime_singapore/what_is_maritime_singapore/premier_hub_port.page36 http://www.mpa.gov.sg/sites/maritime_singapore/what_is_maritime_singapore/premier_hub_port.page37 http://www.mpa.gov.sg/sites/maritime_singapore/what_is_maritime_singapore/premier_hub_port.page38 http://www.sgmarineindustries.com/Indprof/SSOI/ED05_Statistics.pdf39 Cohen at Page 15440 Appendix41 The Alexandrea [2002] SGHC 82 at Para 27

test’42. A claimant conferred a foreign maritime lien under foreign law would clearly

have ‘a claim in respect of a foreign maritime lien’.

It may be possible to argue that the SGHC already has inherent admiralty jurisdiction

to hear any claim in respect of a foreign maritime lien, even if the claim does not fall

within the current ambit of s. 3(1) of the HC(AJ)A. This is because the inherent

jurisdiction of the Singapore courts arises from ‘its status and role as a court’ rather

than an ‘external vesting source’ such as the HC(AJ)A43. However, it is better to put

this matter beyond doubt through the amendment suggested above. The suggested

amendment is also necessary because there is no ‘sweeping up’ provision to capture

any subject matter jurisdiction not covered under s. 3(1) of the HC(AJ)A44. S. 3(1) of

the HC(AJ)A is ‘worded differently from the sweeping-up provision of s. 1(1) of the

Administration of Justice Act 1956’45. Thus, it is likely that this omission is

‘deliberate with the consequence that there is no sweeping up jurisdiction in

Singapore’46.

The practical effect of this amendment is that the SGHC will have admiralty

jurisdiction to hear a claim if the events on which the claim was founded gives rise to

a bundle of rights under foreign law similar in nature to the bundle of rights

recognized as attaching to a maritime lien under Singapore law. This is so regardless

of whether the claim falls within the current ambit of s. 3(1)(a)-(r) of the HC(AJ)A.

There may be an increase of litigation in Singapore because the SGHC will now

clearly have broader admiralty jurisdiction to hear claims in respect of foreign

maritime liens47. Keeping in mind the justifications for reform, this broadening of the

admiralty jurisdiction is a principled one and still within acceptable international

norms. Both s. 2(1) read with s. 1(1)(ee) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act

105 (AJRA) in South Africa and s. 22(1) read with s. 2 of the Federal Court Act

(FCA) in Canada achieve the same sort of broadening effect48. In Har, Le Dain J held

that these provisions allowed the Federal courts to exercise ‘jurisdiction to enforce a 42 The Indriani [1996] SGCA 2 at Para 1243 Jeffrey Pinsler, “The Inherent Powers of the Court” [1997] Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 1 at Page 1044 Toh at Page 8945 Toh at Page 8946 Toh at Page 9047 Contra s. 20 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (U.K.), 1981, c. 54; Lord Diplock in Halcyon at Page 239 stating that s. 3(1) of the HC(AJ)A is ‘exhaustive’

maritime lien’ ‘in addition’ to that listed under s. 22(2) of the FCA49. Therefore, ‘the

limitation imposed’ under s. 43(3) of the FCA on a claim brought in respect of s.

22(2)(m) of the FCA did not apply in that case50.

Recognition

This paper submits that Parliament should also issue an explanatory statement within

the meaning of s. 9A(3)(b) of the Interpretation Act defining a ‘foreign maritime

lien’51. In this regard, a ‘foreign maritime lien’ should be defined as a ‘the bundle of

rights under foreign law similar in nature to the bundle of rights recognized as

attaching to a maritime lien under Singapore law’52. Thus, the courts must engage in a

two-stage process to determine the existence of a foreign maritime lien.

At the first stage, the court should ‘analyze the nature of the rights created by the

application of the foreign law’53. The relevant foreign law to be applied can be

determined by the existing private international law rules of Singapore. In this regard,

the Singapore courts will embark on a three-fold process involving: ‘(a) the

characterization of the relevant issue, (a) the selection of the choice of law rule which

lays down a ‘connecting factor’ for that particular issue and (c) the identification of

the system of law which is tied by that connecting factor to the relevant issue’54. The

nature of the claimant’s rights in the ship would usually be characterized as a property

issue to be governed by the lex situs. This is because ‘the interests of third parties in

the form of a general body of creditors are clearly affected’55. Determining the situs of

a vessel is a vexed problem. It warrants a detailed discussion outside the scope of this

paper. Provisionally, it is submitted that a merchant ship is situated ‘in a country

48 s. 2(1) read with s. 1(1)(ee) of the AJRA inter alia, reads ‘that the Supreme Court of South Africa shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any other matter which virtue of its nature or subject matter is a marine or maritime matter, the meaning of the expression marine or maritime matter not being limited by reason of the matters set forth in the preceding paragraphs’; Cf s. 2(1) read with s. 1(1)(y) of the of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983 in South Africa; Query how the phrase ‘any maritime lien, whether or not falling under any of the preceding paragraphs’ will be interpreted in light of the decision by the Supreme Court of Africa in Transol Bunker B.V. v. Motor Vessel “Andrico Unity” her owners and any parties interested in her; Grecian-Mar SRL v. Motor Vessel “Andrico Unity” er owners and any parties interested in her 1987 (4) SA 325 (A) at Page 334 to 336 [Andrico];49 The Har Rai [1984] 2 F.C. 345 at Para 12 [Har]; Tetley at Page 850 Har at Para 12; Tetley at Page 851 Interpretation Act (Cap. 1, 2002 Rev. Ed. Sing.)52 Ying at Page 9953 Beazley at Page 11254 WestLB AG v. Phillippine National Bank and others [2012] SGHC 162 at Para 7955 Halcyon at Page 231

where it is at any given time’, though she may be deemed ‘to be situate at her port of

registry’ when she is ‘not situated in territorial waters’56. We might query whether the

conflicts approach known as the ‘multiple-contact test’ used in Lauritzen in the US

should be adopted57. The multiple-contact approach can ‘degenerate into a mere

numerical counting of contacts’58.

At the second stage, the court must then decide ‘whether that bundle of rights created

under foreign law is sufficiently equivalent to the bundle of rights called a maritime

lien under Singapore law’59. The courts should look for indicia such as whether the

bundle of rights (1) is ‘an encumbrance over a ship or other res’, (2) accrues ‘from the

moment the cause of action comes into being’, (3) travels ‘secretively with the res’,

(4) survives ‘any change of ownership of the res’, (5) is ‘carried into effect by an

action in rem’ and (6) affords ‘the holder higher priority vis-à-vis other claimants

such that he enjoys a better chance of having his claim satisfied from the proceeds of

sale for the res’60.

This approach will put Singapore at odds with countries such as South Africa, New

Zealand and Australia, which have adopted the position in Halcyon61. However, it is

submitted that the proposed position is better. This is because it gives effect to the

‘substantive characteristics’ of a maritime lien62. A foreign maritime lien ‘cannot be

shaken off by changing the location of the res’63. Crucially, the types of claims that

can give rise to a foreign maritime lien are also not limited to those ‘presently existing

under Singapore law’64. Practically, this explanatory statement will also allow

claimants to know clearly whether they have a foreign maritime lien in a ship arrested

in Singapore. The two-stage process brings some certainty to this area of the law.

56 Sir Lawrence Collins, Dicey, Morris and Collins on The Conflict of Laws, 14th ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2006) at Para 22E-05757 William F. Dougherty, “Multi-Contact Analysis for a Multinational Industry: The United States Approach to Choice of Law Analysis in the Enforcement of Maritime Liens” 13 U.S.F. Maritime Law Journal 75 at Page 82 [Dougherty]; Lauritzen v. Larsen 345 U.S. 571, 953 AMC 1210 (1953)58 Dougherty at Page 8159 Beazley at Page 11260 Toh at Page 23761 Fournier v. The Margaret Z [1999] 3 NZLR 111; Morlines Maritime Agency v. The Proceeds of Sale of the Ship Skulptor Vuchetich [1997] FCA 1627; Andrico62 Jackson at Para 17.5763 The Ioannis Daskalelis [1974] S.C.R. 1248 [Ioannis]64 Toh at Page 237

There are established precedents guiding its application. It is similar to the approach

taken by Bankes L.J. in Colorado and Ritchie J in Ioannis65. In Colorado, Bankes L.J.

held that ‘what rights created by the so-called mortgage deed’ must ‘be determined

according to French law as the contract was made in France. Consequently, the

‘mortgage hypotheque in France’ was also held to be ‘a security in the nature of a

maritime lien’ in England, quite ‘distinct from an English maritime mortgage’66. In

Ioannis, Ritchie J held that ‘the nature of the right in rem fell to be determined

according to the lex loci’ which was US law67.

Enforcement

This paper submits that Parliament should amend the HC(AJ)A to allow a claimant

with a foreign maritime lien on a ship or other property to bring an action in rem

against that ship or other property under s. 4(3) of the HC(AJ)A68. The claimant with a

foreign maritime lien on a ship or other property should not be allowed to bring an

action in rem under s. 4(4) of the HC(AJ)A.

Parliament, in legislating for the recognition and enforcement of foreign maritime

liens, is for all practical purposes creating a new class of maritime lien beyond those

presently existing under Singapore law. This is because, as observed earlier, a foreign

maritime lien is better viewed as a substantive right which accrues in the ship from

the moment the cause of action comes into being. It would be contradictory to then

afford the foreign maritime lienee a statutory right of action in rem, which is a

procedural right against the ship and its sister ships. Further, such an approach is in

the spirit of comity. It sends the message that Singapore is willing to accord the

appropriate levels of respect to the laws of the foreign state by elevating the status of a

foreign maritime lienee.

The consequence of recognizing and enforcing ‘a foreign maritime lien (for example

for good supplied to a ship) where the equivalent local claim does not give rise to a

lien’ is to potentially ‘give the foreign claimant priority over the local one, even

65 Hills Dry Docks & Engineering Company Ltd v. “Colorado” Lloyds Law Reports Vol. 14 No. 5 146 at Page 148 [Colorado]; Ioannis at Page 125966 Thomas at Para 55267 Ioannis at Page 125968 Appendix

where the foreign law’s classification of the claim as a lien is out of line with any

international consensus on the scope of liens’69. This problem can be illustrated using

the case of US and Canada. In the US, the ‘Maritime Lien Act of 1910 conferred a

lien for the suppliers of necessaries’70. For Canada, this brought about ‘a problem

where it would enforce the liens of American necessaries suppliers, but would not

give a lien status to suppliers of necessaries in Canada’71. The Canadian lawmakers

remedied this by introducing s. 139 of the Marine Liability Act 2001, which basically

conferred a necessaries supplier in Canada a maritime lien over foreign vessels72.

It is submitted that legislative reform in the manner adopted in Canada is not

necessary to avoid prejudice against local stakeholders. The Canadian legislation,

though a step in the right direction, is myopic. It ‘perpetuates the same inequitable

treatment against a third country ship suppliers that the Canadian ship suppliers had

been lamenting’ by ‘favoring Canadian and US ship suppliers above all others’73.

Furthermore, it is ‘not carefully integrated into the structure of the existing Canadian

admiralty jurisdiction’74. Instead, two alternative solutions are already available. First,

a Singapore court may refuse on the grounds of public policy to recognize a foreign

maritime lien if to do so would lead to an unacceptably unjust result75. In the case

where a foreign state’s ‘classification of the claim as a lien is so out of line with any

international consensus on the scope of liens’, the Singapore courts can refuse to

recognize a foreign maritime lien from that state76. Second, the admiralty principles of

priority are not ‘immutable’77. A Singapore court may prioritize the foreign maritime

lienee lowly if the ‘equities or policy considerations’ of a particular case calls for it78.

Priorities

69 ALRC Report at Para 12370 Norman Letalik, “Forum Shopping comes to Canada: The Recognition of Foreign Maritime Liens” in The regulation of international shipping: international and comparative perspectives: essays in honor of Edgar Gold (Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2012) 525 at Page 527 [Letalik]; Ioannis 71 Letalik at Page 52772 Letalik at Page 52773 Myburgh74 Myburgh 75 Kuwait Airways Corpn v. Iraqi Airways Co (No. 4 and 5) [2002] UKHL 19 [Kuwait]76 Kuwait 77 Toh at Page 32578 Toh at Page 325

This paper submits that no reforms are needed to the current admiralty principles of

priority. In this regard, a codification of the laws relating to priorities in the form of s.

11 of the AJRA is not recommended as such a ‘legislative restatement would tend to

lack the flexibility needed to do justice in an unusual fact situation’79. Where the

Singapore court is required to rank the rights in a ship involving foreign claimants

from the same foreign jurisdiction whose rights arise under the same foreign law, the

Singapore court should consider applying the priorities rules of that foreign law80.

79 ALRC Report at Para 25780 Tetley at Page 15

APPENDIX

Parliament should amend s. 3(1) of the HC(AJ)A by including a new subsection, s.

3(1)(s) of the HC(AJ)A. S. 3(1)(s) of the HC(AJ)A should read: ‘The admiralty

jurisdiction of the High Court shall be as follows, that is to say, jurisdiction to hear

and determine any of the following questions or claims: any claim in respect of a

foreign maritime lien’

Parliament should issue an explanatory statement within the meaning of s. 9A(3)(b) of

the Interpretation Act defining a ‘foreign maritime lien’. In this regard, a ‘foreign

maritime lien’ should be defined as a ‘the bundle of rights under foreign law similar

in nature to the bundle of rights recognized as attaching to a maritime lien under

Singapore law’

Parliament should amend s. 4(3) of the HC(AJ)A to read: ‘In any case in which there

is a maritime lien, other charge or foreign maritime lien on any ship, aircraft or other

property for the amount claimed, the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court may be

invoked by an action in rem against that ship, aircraft or property’

BIBLIOGRAPHY

D. R. Thomas, Maritime Liens, (London: Stevens & Sons, 1980) at Page 552

Dr. P K Mukherjee, “The law of maritime liens and conflict of laws” (2003) 9 Journal

of International Maritime Law at Page 545

Toh Kian Sing, Admiralty Law and Practice, 2d ed. (Singapore: LexisNexis, 2007) at

Page 237

William Tetley, “Maritime Liens in the Conflict of Laws” in James A.R. Nafziger and

Symen C. Symeonides, ed., Law and Justice in a Multistate World (New York:

Transational Publisher, Inc. 2002) 437 at Page 443

CA Ying, “Priorities and the Foreign Maritime Lien” (1982) 8 Adelaide Law Review

95 at Page 96 [Ying]

T.A.G. Beazley , “Maritime Liens in the Conflict of Laws” 20 Malaya Law Review

111 at Page 112

D. C. Jackson, Enforcement of Maritime Claims, 4th ed. (London: LLP: 2005) at Para

17.57

John M. Kriz, “Ship Mortgages, Maritime Liens And their Enforcement: The Brussels

Conventions of 1926 and 1952”, (1963) Duke Law Journal 671 at Page 672

Martin Davies and Kate Lewins, “Foreign Maritime Liens: Should They be

Recognized in Australian Courts?”, (2002) 76 The Australian Law Journal 775 at

Page 781

Brian R Opeskin, “The Price of Forum Shopping”, (1994) 16 Sydney Law Review 14

at Page 27

Michael Marks Cohen, “In Defense of Halcyon Isle”, (1987) Llyod’s Maritime and

Commercial Law Quarterly 152 at Page 154

Civil Admiralty Jurisdiction (ALRC Report 33 1986) at Para 96

http://www.mpa.gov.sg/sites/maritime_singapore/what_is_maritime_singapore/

premier_hub_port.page

http://www.sgmarineindustries.com/Indprof/SSOI/ED05_Statistics.pdf

Jeffrey Pinsler, “The Inherent Powers of the Court” [1997] Singapore Journal of

Legal Studies 1 at Page 10

Sir Lawrence Collins, Dicey, Morris and Collins on The Conflict of Laws, 14th ed.

(London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2006) at Para 22E-057

William F. Dougherty, “Multi-Contact Analysis for a Multinational Industry: The

United States Approach to Choice of Law Analysis in the Enforcement of Maritime

Liens” 13 U.S.F. Maritime Law Journal 75

Norman Letalik, “Forum Shopping comes to Canada: The Recognition of Foreign

Maritime Liens” in The regulation of international shipping: international and

comparative perspectives: essays in honor of Edgar Gold (Boston: Martinus Nijhoff

Publishers, 2012) 525

Myburgh PA “The Ship Supplier’s Lien: Taking a (Maple Leaf out of the Canadian Statute Book?” [2010] Asia-Pacific Law Review 279