As this report is the first of its genre from Singapore it covers a wider period than the title would justify. Hence cases dating back to 1980 are included.

After The Halycyon Isle 1, in which the Privy Council declared that under rules of the conflict of laws a foreign maritime lien will not be recognized and enforced by English courts, a Singapore court likewise will not accord priority to a claim which does not give rise to a maritime lien in English law even though the proper law of the claim accords it a maritime lien status. Since then there has been only one other Privy Council decision relating to maritime law—The August 8th 2. This related to a procedural matter. English rules of procedure prohibit summary judgment in Admiralty actions in rem. Although Singapore rules were to a great extent the same as the English Rules of the Supreme Court there were minor differences. In the result there was no prohibition in the Singapore Rules of Court against filing an application for summary judgment under Order 14 procedure in Admiralty actions in rem. The main reasoning of the Privy Council for its decision was the absence of a prohibition in the Rules of Court against such a procedure. As an additional ground the Privy Council ruled that even if summary judgment procedure were excluded by the Rules of Court in Admiralty actions, it would be impossible to record that summary judgment procedure was excluded in an Admiralty action in personam. The Privy Council declared that from the time of the appearance by the defendants’ owners the action continued as an action in personam as well as an action in rem, and in so far as it became an action in personam, summary judgment procedure under Order 14 applied.

There have not been many cases which declared any important new principle of law. A number of decisions were concerned with the meaning of “owner” as it is used in connection with the ownership of ships.

Interocean Towing (Pte) Ltd. (Interocean), the plaintiff in The Wilbie 3, brought an action to recover moneys due on a towage agreement. The plaintiff’s name did not appear in the towage agreement. It was signed by the agents of the tug owner. The defendants disputed Interocean’s right to sue, in effect contending that Interocean was not the tug owner at the time the agreement was entered into. At the trial no satisfactory evidence was adduced to show that Interocean was the owner of the tug at the relevant time. The Singapore Register of Ships did not show Interocean as the owner of the tug, which was then flying the Singapore flag.

The trial judge had no hestitation in cincluding that the plaintiff had not discharged the onus of proving that at the material time Interocean was the owner of the tug. The