SEATRIUM NEW ENERGY LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS KEPPEL FELS LIMITED) v HJ SHIPBUILDING & CONSTRUCTION CO., LTD.

[2024] SGHC(A) 26 High Court (Appellate Division) 16 September 2024 • AD/CA 131/2023 • 14 min read
4 cases cited

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

we dismiss the appeal and award costs to Hanjin in the sum of S$60,000 including disbursements.

Source: [2024] SGHC(A) 26, High Court (Appellate Division), decided 16 September 2024. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court High Court (Appellate Division)
Decided
Judges Kannan Ramesh, Philip Jeyaretnam, See Kee Oon
Charges / claim Equity, Contract, Tort
Outcome Appeal dismissed
Sentence / award $60,000
Counsel Kenneth Tan Partnership, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, Virtus Law LLP, Ang Kaili, Daryll Richard Ng, Mark Tang Yu Zhong, Sara Sim Hui Li, Shannon Yeo Feng Ting, Sia Bao Huei, Tan Wee Kheng Kenneth Michael, Wayne Yeo (Yang Weien), Wong Soon Peng Adrian

Source: [2024] SGHC(A) 26, High Court (Appellate Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .

Catchwords

Practice Areas

Judges (3)

Counsel (12)

Parties (2)

Case Significance

Seatrium New Energy Ltd (formerly known as Keppel FELS Ltd) v HJ Shipbuilding & Construction Co, Ltd (formerly known as Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Co Ltd) [2024] SGHC(A) 26 was an ex tempore judgment delivered by Kannan Ramesh JAD on behalf of the Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore on 16 September 2024, with See Kee Oon JAD and Philip Jeyaretnam J on the coram, in Civil Appeal No 131 of 2023. The appeal was against the decision of a Judge of the General Division of the High Court dismissing the appellant's claim against the respondent for defective work carried out by the respondent pursuant to a subcontract between them in relation to a vessel; the decision below is reported at [2023] SGHC 264. The court dismissed the appeal.

The catchwords frame the issues as promissory estoppel, whether a party's claim was precluded by a contractual term excluding liability, whether a duty of care in negligence can be imposed in addition to a co-terminous contractual duty, and whether latent defects that do not manifest or are not discovered during the warranty period are nonetheless caught by the warranty. The appellant Seatrium New Energy Ltd was represented by Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, including Wong Soon Peng Adrian, Mark Tang Yu Zhong, Sara Sim Hui Li, Sia Bao Huei and Wayne Yeo (Yang Weien), while the respondent HJ Shipbuilding & Construction Co, Ltd was represented by Kenneth Tan Partnership and Virtus Law LLP, including Tan Wee Kheng Kenneth Michael, Daryll Richard Ng, Ang Kaili and Shannon Yeo Feng Ting.

Summary

Seatrium New Energy Ltd (formerly Keppel FELS Ltd) appealed against a High Court judge's dismissal of its claim against subcontractor HJ Shipbuilding & Construction Co, Ltd (formerly Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Co Ltd) for defective work on pontoons and lower columns of an accommodation support vessel, the dispute centring on a release contained in a side letter and letter agreement. The Appellate Division of the High Court considered whether the claim was precluded by a contractual release, the scope of warranty obligations for latent defects, promissory estoppel, and whether a co-terminous duty of care in tort could be imposed. The court held that the release for "any claims whatsoever" covered both contractual and tort claims, dismissed the appeal, and awarded the respondent costs of S$60,000 including disbursements.

What did Seatrium New Energy Ltd v HJ Shipbuilding & Construction Co, Ltd [2024] SGHC(A) 26 decide?

In this ex tempore judgment of 16 September 2024, the Appellate Division, through Kannan Ramesh JAD, dismissed Seatrium New Energy Ltd's appeal in Civil Appeal No 131 of 2023 against the dismissal of its claim for defective subcontract work on a vessel, reported below at [2023] SGHC 264.

What issues were raised in [2024] SGHC(A) 26?

The appeal raised promissory estoppel, whether the claim was precluded by a contractual term excluding liability, whether a duty of care could be imposed alongside a co-terminous contractual duty, and whether latent defects not manifesting or discovered during the warranty period were caught by the warranty.

Cases Cited (4)

SG (3)
[1998] SGHC 365 [2021] SGHC 9 [2023] SGHC 264
SLR (1)
[2020] 3 SLR 373

Related cases

Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.

Referenced in

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2024] SGHC(A) 26)