<span class="news-text_italic-underline">General Division, Singapore High Court | 10 April 2026</span>
The claimant buyer purchased a vessel from the defendant seller pursuant to an amended Norwegian Saleform 2012 (“<span class="news-text_medium">Saleform 2012</span>”), which contained a clause providing for arbitration under the Singapore Chamber of Maritime Arbitration (“<span class="news-text_medium">SCMA</span>”) Rules in Singapore. The buyer took delivery of the vessel, which was subsequently arrested in Singapore by a third party who alleged that the seller had misdelivered its cargo prior to the sale.
The buyer demanded that the seller procure the vessel's release from arrest, relying on clause 9 of the Saleform 2012, which obliged the seller to "indemnify the Buyers against all consequences of claims made against the Vessel which have been incurred prior to the time of delivery." The seller did not respond to the demand. The buyer applied to the Singapore High Court under section 12A of <span class="news-text_italic-underline">The International Arbitration Act 1994</span> (“<span class="news-text_medium">IAA</span>”) for an interim mandatory injunction compelling the seller to furnish security to secure the vessel's release, notwithstanding that it had not yet commenced arbitration proceedings.
The Court dismissed the application on three grounds.
<span class="news-text_medium">Urgency</span>
Section 12A(4) of the IAA requires an applicant to demonstrate urgency where, as here, the application is made without notice. The buyer argued that the urgent need for relief arose from the risk of the vessel being sold pendente lite. The Court rejected this, noting that the buyer had failed to commence arbitration in the two months since the vessel's arrest and had offered no explanation for that delay. Whilst the Court accepted that its powers under section 12A could be invoked prior to the commencement of arbitration, it observed that a delay in commencing arbitration may indicate a lack of genuine intention to pursue such proceedings. Interim relief under section 12A is available only where it would genuinely aid arbitration proceedings being, or to be, diligently pursued.
<span class="news-text_medium">Serious Question to be Tried</span>
The Court held that, although there was a serious question as to whether the arrest constituted a claim made against the vessel within clause 9, there was no serious question to be tried on buyer’s primary contention that clause 9 required the seller to furnish security to procure the vessel’s release. On a proper construction of clause 9 of the Saleform 2012, the seller’s undertaking to indemnify the buyer against all consequences of pre-delivery claims did not, absent express language, impose a preventive obligation to furnish security so as to procure the vessel’s release from arrest. The Court distinguished authorities on maritime letters of indemnity, observing that those cases involved express wording requiring the indemnifier to provide security, whereas clause 9 contained no such stipulation. The buyer's construction of the clause was therefore not one that raised a seriously arguable issue.
<span class="news-text_medium">Balance of Convenience</span>
The Court further held that the balance of convenience lay against granting the injunction. Granting the injunction would in substance have given buyer the very relief it sought on an interim basis, with the practical consequence that the vessel could be released while leaving seller exposed and potentially without an effective remedy if buyer did not pursue the arbitration diligently. Such an outcome would irremediably prejudice the seller and effectively render the interim relief final in nature, an outcome inconsistent with the purpose of section 12A.
This decision is a timely reminder of the Singapore courts' rigorous approach to applications for interim relief in aid of arbitration. It underscores that section 12A of the IAA is not a mechanism for obtaining substantive relief by stealth and that applicants must demonstrate both genuine urgency and a firm intention to diligently pursue the underlying arbitration. Parties contemplating such applications should ensure that arbitration proceedings are commenced, or at the very least imminent, before seeking interim relief from the court. The decision also offers useful guidance on the construction of indemnity clauses in standard-form ship sale agreements, confirming that an obligation to indemnify against losses does not, without more, extend to an obligation to furnish security.
<span class="news-text_medium">Case:</span> <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Aquilo Shipping Inc v SRTT Marine Trading & Services Pte Ltd [2026] SGHC 79</span> (10 April 2026)
