Extract to table

2 Application of the Associated Ship Doctrine The application of the associated ship doctrine under section 4(4)(ii) to the present case requires the following elements to be established: (a) The claim must be of a type falling within section 3(1)(d) to (q) of the HCAJA; (b) The claim must have arisen in connection with a ship; (c) The "relevant person" (i

the person who would be liable in personam) must have been the owner, charterer, or person in possession or control of the ship in connection with which the claim arose, at the time the cause of action arose; (d) At the time the action is brought, the relevant person must be the beneficial owner of all shares in the ship sought to be arrested; and (e) The ship sought to be arrested must be "any other ship" (i

In The "Andres Bonifacio" [1993] 3 SLR(R) 71, the Singapore High Court held that the question of beneficial ownership must be determined by reference to the substance of the ownership arrangement, not merely its legal form

While the two proceedings are technically separate — one being an in rem action under the HCAJA and the other an originating summons under the IAA — they are directed to the same ultimate objective and must proceed in parallel without inconsistency

The arrest proceedings must be closely coordinated with the pending enforcement application under OS 872/2024