Kabanov Vladimir & 18 Others v The Owners of The Ship or Vessel "Virgo I" ex "Kapitan Voloshin" and Others

Kabanov Vladimir & 18 Others v The Owners of The Ship or Vessel "Virgo I" ex "Kapitan Voloshin" and Others

VBTRF, by asserting entitlement to the balance of proceeds and seeking substantive relief, was in substance a plaintiff for the purposes of s 388(1); Falkland was therefore a defendant for those purposes and entitled to seek security for its costs; because VBTRF was in liquidation and likely unable to pay Falkland's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] SGHC 110
Parties
Plaintiffs: Kabanov Vladimir & 18 Others; Defendants: The Owners of The Ship or Vessel "Virgo I" ex "Kapitan Voloshin"; Intervener: Singapore Technologies Marine Ltd; Second Intervener: Joint Stock Company Vladivostok Base of Trawling & Refrigeratory Fleet (VBTRF); Defendant (entered Appearance): Falkland Investments Ltd
Court
General Division of the High Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
19 June 2000
Case Number
Adm in Rem 774/1998, RA 000461/1999
Procedural Posture
Admiralty in Rem / Interlocutory Appeal Against Assistant Registrar's Refusal to Order Security for Costs
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order for security for costs granted
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Intervention, Ownership Dispute, Interpleader, Proceeds of Sale
Source Language
english
Admiralty Civil Procedure Companies Law Security for Costs Intervention Ownership Dispute Interpleader Proceeds of Sale

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kabanov Vladimir & 18 Others

Plaintiffs

The Owners of The Ship or Vessel "Virgo I" ex "Kapitan Voloshin"

Defendants

Singapore Technologies Marine Ltd

Intervener

Joint Stock Company Vladivostok Base of Trawling & Refrigeratory Fleet (VBTRF)

Second Intervener

Falkland Investments Ltd

Defendant (entered Appearance)

Procedural Posture

Admiralty in Rem / Interlocutory Appeal Against Assistant Registrar's Refusal to Order Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether VBTRF is a 'plaintiff' for purposes of s 388(1) Companies Act
  2. 2 Whether Falkland is a 'defendant' for purposes of s 388(1) Companies Act
  3. 3 Whether court should exercise its discretion to order security for costs and in what amount

Ratio Decidendi

VBTRF, by asserting entitlement to the balance of proceeds and seeking substantive relief, was in substance a plaintiff for the purposes of s 388(1); Falkland was therefore a defendant for those purposes and entitled to seek security for its costs; because VBTRF was in liquidation and likely unable to pay Falkland's costs if Falkland succeeded, the court in its discretion ordered VBTRF to provide security of S$20,000.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order for security for costs granted

Orders

  • VBTRF to provide security for Falkland's costs in the amount of S$20,000