(1) Pedregal Maritime S.A. (Appellant) v Batavia Eximp & Contracting (S) Pte. Ltd (Respondent) (2) Batavia Eximp & Contracting (S) Pte Ltd (Appellant) v Pedregal Maritime SA (Respondent)
Tuesday 19 May 2026
(1) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 4th November 2025 the Appellant, Pedregal Maritime S.A., appeals a decision of the High Court, delivered on 22 July 2025 with the consequent order made 27 October 2025.
This case involved two appeals under the Arbitration Act 1996 arising from an award concerning alleged misdelivery of cargo carried on the Taikoo Brilliance. The holders of bills of lading claimed misdelivery after the cargo was discharged in India without production of the bills, while the owners argued the claim was time‑barred under the Hague‑Visby Rules.
The court considered whether Singapore proceedings to arrest a sister ship amounted to a “suit” interrupting the one‑year limitation period, and whether the bills of lading adequately stated that cargo was carried on deck. It held that proceedings for security alone do not constitute a “suit”, but that the bills of lading adequately stated that cargo was carried on deck
The owners succeeded on the limitation issue, while the holders succeeded on the interpretation of the bills of lading.
(2) By Appellant’s Notice filed on 7 November 2025, the Appellant, Batavia Eximp & Contracting (S) Pte Ltd, appeals the decision of the High Court, delivered on 22 July 2025, with the consequent order made on 27 October 2025.
This case involved two appeals under the Arbitration Act 1996 arising from an award concerning alleged misdelivery of cargo carried on the Taikoo Brilliance. The holders of bills of lading claimed misdelivery after the cargo was discharged in India without production of the bills, while the owners argued the claim was time‑barred under the Hague‑Visby Rules.
The court considered whether Singapore proceedings to arrest a sister ship amounted to a “suit” interrupting the one‑year limitation period, and whether the bills of lading adequately stated that cargo was carried on deck. It held that proceedings for security alone do not constitute a “suit”, but that the bills of lading adequately stated that cargo was carried on deck
The owners succeeded on the limitation issue, while the holders succeeded on the interpretation of the bills of lading.
(1) Appellant’s Skeleton Argument
(1) Respondent’s Skeleton Argument
(2) Appellant’s Skeleton Argument
(2) Respondent’s Skeleton Argument
View Hearing: