This country-specific Q&A provides an overview of Shipping laws and regulations applicable in Singapore.
What system of port state control applies in your jurisdiction? What are their powers?
The Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore (MPA) undertakes the Port State Control (PSC) inspections to check and ensure that visiting foreign ships are in compliance with international regulations. The PSC inspection is an important function and the inspections are carried out by PSC Officers from the Ship Safety Department of the Shipping Division. The inspection ensures that ships leaving the port meet the international safety standards, security and marine pollution prevention standards. Ships that do not meet the required standards may be detained and would need to undergo a follow-up inspection before securing their release.
Are there any applicable international conventions covering wreck removal or pollution? If not what laws apply?
The main sources of law dealing with wreck removal in Singapore may be found under part IX of the Merchant Shipping Act and the Merchant Shipping (Wreck Removal) Act) 2017 (“No. 25 of 2017”), which gives effect to the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks, 2007 (for all Singapore registered ships over 300 GT).
As for pollution from a vessel, the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL Convention) (Annex I to Annex V) and the 1997 MARPOL Protocol to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (Annex VI) (MARPOL PROT) had been ratified by Singapore. The Singapore Parliament has thus included provisions to give effect to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973 as modified and added to by the Protocol of 1978.
The Prevention of Pollution of the Sea Act (Cap 243) empowers MPA to take preventive measures against pollution. In addition, the Merchant Shipping (Civil Liability and Compensation for Oil Pollution) Act (Cap 180), which give effect to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1992 and to the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage 1992 addresses liability for oil pollution. The Merchant Shipping (Civil Liability and Compensation for Bunker Oil Production) Act (Cap 180), which was enacted to give effect to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage 2001, prescribes the penalty for bunker oil pollution.
What is the limit on sulphur content of fuel oil used in your territorial waters? Is there a MARPOL Emission Control Area in force?
The Revised MARPOL Annex VI which entered into force on 1 July 2010 through Resolution MEPC. 176(58) was given effect to in the Singapore Prevention of Pollution of the Sea (Air) (Amendment) Regulations 2010 on the same date.
These Regulations apply to Singapore ships anywhere in the world and other ships while they are in Singapore waters.
Under Regulation 14 of the revised MARPOL Annex VI, the sulphur content of any fuel oil used onboard ships outside Emission Control Areas (ECA) flying the flags of MARPOL Annex VI Parties and by other ships in their territories shall not exceed 3.50% m/m on and after 1 January 2012 and 0.50% m/m on and after 1 January 2020 unless they are equipped with type approved abatement technologies for reducing SOx emissions to the required levels.
As per the mandatory resolutions adopted by the recent 75th session of the Maritime Environment Protection Committee, Resolution MEPC. 324(75) concerns amendments to the Annex of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto.
This resolution adopts amendments to MARPOL Annex VI concerning the procedures for sampling and verification of the sulphur content of fuel oil and the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI). The amendments will enter into force on 01 April 2022 and will be given effect through amendments to the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea (Air) Regulations.
There is no Emissions Control Area around Singapore. However, the fuel sulphur limits under MARPOL Annex VI apply.
Are there any applicable international conventions covering collision and salvage? If not what laws apply?
In Singapore, the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Collisions at Sea) Regulations incorporates the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972, and the latter is set out in the Schedule to the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Collisions at Sea) Regulations.
The rules contained in the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels.
The statute regulating salvage of vessels in Singapore is found in part IX of the Merchant Shipping Act (Cap 179).
A Bill in Parliament has been passed to implement the 1989 Salvage Convention in entirety, save for salvage that takes place in inland waters involving inland water vessels or where the salvage operation concerns seabed maritime cultural property of prehistoric, archaeological or historical importance. In this regard, the Merchant Shipping (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2019 was passed to amend the Merchant Shipping Act (Cap 179) to implement the 1989 Salvage Convention. These amendments have come into force since 24 July 2021.
Is your country party to the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims? If not, is there equivalent domestic legislation that applies? Who can rely on such limitation of liability provisions?
The provisions of the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976 (“LLMC 1976”) have the force of law in Singapore (other than paragraph 1(d) and 1(e) of Article 2 of the Convention). The Convention is set out in the Schedule under the Merchant Shipping Act (Cap 179) and came into force on 29 December 2019, applying to liability arising out of an occurrence which took place after 29 December 2019.
If cargo arrives delayed, lost or damaged, what can the receiver do to secure their claim? Is your country party to the 1952 Arrest Convention? If your country has ratified the 1999 Convention, will that be applied, or does that depend upon the 1999 Convention coming into force? If your country does not apply any Convention, (and/or if your country allows ships to be detained other than by formal arrest) what rules apply to permit the detention of a ship, and what limits are there on the right to arrest or detain (for example, must there be a “maritime claim”, and, if so, how is that defined)? Is it possible to arrest in order to obtain security for a claim to be pursued in another jurisdiction or in arbitration?
Singapore is not a party to the 1952 International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to the Arrest of Sea-Going Ships or the 1999 International Convention on Arrest of Ships. The types of claim permitting an arrest of ships are set out under Section 3 of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act (Cap 123).
In a case involving delayed, lost or damaged cargo, the relevant subsection would be sections 3(1)(g) or s 3(1)(h) of the High Court (Admiralty Jurisdiction) Act, for any claim for loss of or damage to goods carried in a ship or any claim arising out of agreement relating to carriage of goods in a ship.
Section 7(1) of the International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A), which gives the court such power to allow ships arrested under the High Court’s admiralty jurisdiction for the purposes of obtaining security to aid pending international arbitrations. However, the power of arrest in an action in rem cannot be exercised in aid of legal proceedings in a foreign court (see: The Eurohope  SGHC 218).
For an arrest, are there any special or notable procedural requirements, such as the provision of a PDF or original power of attorney to authorise you to act?
There is no requirement for a power of attorney. A Writ is filed (with a brief endorsement of claim) and together with an affidavit setting out the background and details of the claim and the solicitor will attend before a Registrar to seek a warrant of arrest.
What maritime liens / maritime privileges are recognised in your jurisdiction? Is recognition a matter for the law of the forum, the law of the place where the obligation was incurred, the law of the flag of the vessel, or another system of law?
Claims for salvage
Damage lien arising out of damage done by a ship (see: The Vinalines Pioneer  1 SLR 448)
Master and crew’s wages
Is it a requirement that the owner or demise charterer of the vessel be liable in personam? Or can a vessel be arrested in respect of debts incurred by, say, a charterer who has bought but not paid for bunkers or other necessaries?
It is a requirement that the owner or demise charterer of the vessel be liable in personam. Under Section 4 of the High Court Admiralty Jurisdiction Act, the arresting party must identify the party who would be liable in an action in personam.
Are sister ship or associated ship arrests possible?
Yes. Sister ships under the same registered ownership as the offending vessel may be arrested, provided it is under the same ownership at the time of the arrest. Ships in associated ownership may not be arrested.
Does the arresting party need to put up counter-security as the price of an arrest? In what circumstances will the arrestor be liable for damages if the arrest is set aside?
Counter-security is not needed. However, the Sheriff may request that the arresting party to place a deposit to cover the Sheriff’s anticipated expenses in maintaining the vessel while under arrest, as the arresting party is obliged to maintain the vessel during the period of arrest.
The arresting party may be liable for damages when the arrest is a “wrongful arrest”. In such a case, the Defendant would have to show that the Plaintiff had carried out the arrest with mala fide or with gross negligence as to imply malice on the arresting party which results in losses to the Defendant. If the Defendant is successful, the arrest may be set aside and damages may be claimed against the arresting party.
How can an owner secure the release of the vessel? For example, is a Club LOU acceptable security for the claim?
A ship may be released upon the provision of alternative security in several forms, including:
letter of undertaking from a P & I club;
bank guarantee from a first-class bank in Singapore; or
payment into court.
Describe the procedure for the judicial sale of arrested ships. What is the priority ranking of claims?
The practice of the Singapore courts is to consider applications for the judicial sale of ships if security is not provided, in order to avoid a depreciating value of the ship under continual arrest. The sale of a vessel pendente lite is possible.
Pursuant to Order 70 Rule 21 of the Rules of Court, where in an action in rem against a ship the Court has ordered the ship to be sold, any party who has obtained or obtains judgment against the ship or proceeds of sale of the ship may apply to the Court by summons for an order determining the order of priority of the claims against the proceeds of sale of the ship.
As regards the order of priorities, it is as follows:
Sheriff’s costs and expenses;
plaintiff’s legal costs of arrest;
maritime liens that arose prior to arrest;
maritime liens post-arrest;
mortgagee’s claim; and
claims by other claimants having statutory liens over vessel.
Who is liable under a bill of lading? How is “the carrier” identified? Or is that not a relevant question?
Whether a bill of lading is a shipowner’s bill or a charterer’s bill is a matter of construction of the bill of lading. In some cases, the terms of the charterparty may shed some light on this issue. It is crucial to read the carriage document as a whole so as to determine whether it was the parties’ intention that the shipowner or charterer should undertake responsibility for carriage of the goods (The “Arktis Sky”  3 SLR(R) 177).
Is the proper law of the bill of lading relevant? If so, how is it determined?
Where the contract of carriage involves an international dimension, any resulting cargo claim will raise issues as to what is the proper law of the contract. The proper law of the bill of lading is relevant as it determines how the contract should be performed and the law under which the dispute shall be settled.
The proper law may be determined by the express choice of law of the bill of lading itself. Otherwise, the court will determine if there is an implied choice of law and in the event where no choice is indicated, the proper law would be the system of law with which the bill of lading has its closest and most real connection.
Are jurisdiction clauses recognised and enforced?
Most bills of lading would have an express term stating the choice of court for disputes relating to the bill of lading. These clauses are generally recognised and enforced. Ultimately, the force of any application for a stay will depend upon whether the forum clause is exclusive or non-exclusive.
What is the attitude of your courts to the incorporation of a charterparty, specifically: is an arbitration clause in the charter given effect in the bill of lading context?
It depends on the wording of the clause. There is case law suggesting that general wordings may be insufficient to incorporate an ancillary charterparty arbitration clause and that the same result must follow with regard to the charterparty jurisdiction clause (see: The “Dolphina”  1 SLR 992) Parties should make clear in the bill of lading that the bill of lading is subject to an arbitration clause in the charter.
Is your country party to any of the international conventions concerning bills of lading (the Hague Rules, Hamburg Rules etc)? If so, which one, and how has it been adopted – by ratification, accession, or in some other manner? If not, how are such issues covered in your legal system?
The Hague Visby Rules is adopted in Singapore and is implemented by section 3 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (Cap 33), which gives the Hague Visby Rules the “force of law”.
Is your country party to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards? If not, what rules apply? What are the available grounds to resist enforcement?
Yes, Singapore is a party to the 1958 New York Convention and the International Arbitration Act gives effect to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.
Pursuant to the International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A), some grounds to resist enforcement include: a party’s lack of capacity to agree to arbitrate, an invalid arbitration agreement is involved, a party not given proper notice or as unable to present his case, the award goes beyond scope of arbitration agreement, the composition of tribunal or procedure is not in compliance with agreement or lex arbitri, the award is not yet binding, the award is set aside or suspended by competent authority, the subject-matter of dispute not arbitrable and the enforcement is against the state’s public policy.
Please summarise the relevant time limits for commencing suit in your jurisdiction (e.g. claims in contract or in tort, personal injury and other passenger claims, cargo claims, salvage and collision claims, product liability claims).
The time limit for commencing suit for a contractual claim, tort or product liability claim is 6 years from the date on which the cause of action accrued. The time limit for commencing suit for a personal injury claim is within 3 years of accrual of the negligent act or omission or knowledge. As for cargo claims, the time bar is within 1 year of the date of delivery of goods or of the date when they should have been delivered (Article III, paragraphs 6 of the Hague Visby Rules). As for salvage and collision claims, pursuant to Section 8 of the Maritime Conventions Act 1911 (Cap IA3), there is a 2 year limitation period from the date when the damage, loss or injury that was caused by the ship or the salvage services were rendered.
What restrictions, if any, has your jurisdiction imposed on crew changes in the wake of the Coronavirus pandemic?
MPA issues port circulars from time to time and the current regulations as per Port Marine Circular No. 030 of 2021 include:
Ship owners/managers/agents shall submit applications at least 14 days before the planned crew change, especially if the application includes sign-on crew.
For foreign-flagged ships, crew change will be considered if the ship meets all prevailing requirements, and is in Singapore for cargo operations, bunkering and/or other marine services.
Stay Home Notice (SHN) and COVID-19 tests required.
In general, signing-on crew are required to serve 14-day Stay-Home-Notice (SHN) in the crew’s originating country/region in the period immediately prior to his/her departure flight/ferry to Singapore. The crew should be completely isolated in a room with a dedicated toilet with strictly no interaction with others (including family members) at his/her place of residence, or serve the SHN in a dedicated facility/hotel.
Crew from specific low-risk countries/regions will either not be required to serve the SHN or serve a shorter SHN of 7 days in his/her originating country/region prior to departure for Please refer to ICA’s website (https://safetravel.ica.gov.sg/files/SHN-and-swab-summary.pdf) for the latest list of low risk countries/regions where no or 7-day SHN is imposed.
The crew must have a negative result from a COVID-19 test (polymerase chain reaction (PCR) type) taken at a government-approved or ISO 15189-accredited testing facility at his/her originating country not more than 48 hours prior to departure for Singapore.
During the entire crew change process, including during the journey to Singapore, the crew should not be in a group of more than five (5) persons, and must remain in the same group. There must be no interactions between groups.
The crew should only join his/her ship not more than two (2) days before the date of the ship’s final departure from Singapore. For ships departing for sea trial and returning to Singapore, the date of departure for sea trial will not be considered the date of the ship’s final departure.
Crew shall only join the ship in Singapore after all high-risk shore-based personnel have completed their work onboard and disembarked the ship.
Meet-and-greet services must be arranged for sign-on crew arriving at Changi Airport, to escort the crew from the moment they disembark the plane to the point where they are handed over to the agent for the direct transfer to the ship or designated holding facility.
Crew who have recovered from COVID-19 must submit documentary proof of his/her past diagnosis of COVID-19 based on the earliest positive PCR test result. If the date of the positive PCR test result is 21 days or fewer before the date of arrival in Singapore, he/she will not be approved for crew change. If the date of positive PCR test result is more than 21 days before the date of arrival in Singapore, he/she shall comply with the above sign-on requirements.
Limited contact with other shore-based personnel and travel certification required.
The crew must not have gone ashore in the last 21 days before disembarking the ship, must have remained well and not had contact with any known or suspected case of COVID-19 throughout that period.
The crew must refrain from interacting with shore-based personnel at previous ports of call in the last 21 days.
The crew must be certified fit-to-travel by a doctor in Singapore not more than 24 hours before disembarking the ship. Tele-medicine can be used to obtain a fit-to-travel assessment and certification. MPA will accept fit-to-travel certificates issued by Singapore Medical Council-fully registered doctors.
During the entire crew change process, the crew should not be in a group of more than five (5) persons, and must remain in the same group. There must be no interactions between groups.
Crew subjected to serology test shall remain onboard until production of a negative COVID-19 serology test result.
Sign-on crew and sign-off crew may stay at the designated holding facilities in Singapore for up to 24 hours.
CrewSafe accredited facility
The Singapore Shipping Tripartite Alliance Resilience Fund Taskforce (SFTF) developed a CrewSafe audit programme to assist crew source nations to bring a higher level of confidence and quality control checks into crew change processes such as quarantine/holding, medical and swabbing facilities.
For sign-on crew who undergo the protocol under these CrewSafe accredited facilities located overseas, his/her crew change application may be given the following concessions:
Submission of crew change application must be made at least 7 days in advance, instead of 14 days.
If a sign-on crew undergoing the CrewSafe protocol is cancelled, direct replacement for this crew will be allowed if the replacement has been undergoing CrewSafe protocol for the same required duration, instead of having to re-submit a new application and re-start the process.
At Singapore, sign-on crew who had undergone the CrewSafe protocol may stay at the designated holding facilities for up to 3 days, if required
Holding areas at Marine South Pier and West Coast Pier
All crew that utilises Marina South Pier (MSP) or West Coast Pier (WCP) shall remain at the designated holding areas while waiting to clear immigration. Should the holding area be full, the crew shall remain in their private transportation.
For sign-off crew, the private transportation shall be ready and waiting so that the crew can depart MSP/WCP immediately upon clearing immigration and do not need to crowd up the holding area.
Agents and appointed drivers are responsible for ensuring that the crew remain in the holding area or private vehicle at all times. At no time should the crew be loitering outside the holding area and interacting with the general public.
Does your system of law recognize force majeure, or grant relief from undue hardship? If so, in what circumstances might the Covid-19 pandemic enable a party to claim protection or relief?
Singapore law relating to force majeure largely follows the English position, which is that force majeure is premised on a contractual term which allows the parties to suspend or terminate their obligations to perform the contract, when specified disrupting events take place which are beyond their control. The force majeure clause must be expressly provided for in the existing contract.
Where a force majeure clause is incorporated into a contract, the question of whether the COVID-19 pandemic constitutes a force majeure event will depend on the wording of the force majeure clause as well as the when the contract was entered into. It is arguable that the pandemic will be covered for events that have been identified such as “epidemic” or “acts of government/ government regulations”. Conversely, if the contract had been made after the outbreak of COVID-19, it will be difficult to argue that the pandemic was an unforeseeable event.
That being said, Singapore has implemented the COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020, which seeks to offer temporary statutory relief to various businesses and individuals who have been affected by the global pandemic.
In brief, this Act covers a broad range of categories, such as relief for contracts affected by delays in construction, modifications to bankruptcy and winding up applications and also temporary relief for companies that are unable to perform their contractual obligations. More information can be found at https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/covid19-relief/.
Temporary relief from inability to perform contractual obligations
This temporary relief acts as a statutory moratorium on the enforcement of rights and obligations, but this is subject to several conditions.
First, this temporary relief is given only to specific categories of contracts and not to all types of contracts. More specifically, this Act only covers contracts entered before 25 March 2020 and the prescribed period for some types of contracts has already expired.
The contracts that have qualified for such temporary relief in 2021 include: –
Options to purchase and sale and purchase agreements with housing, commercial and industrial developers (extended to 30 June 2021);
Hire-purchase and conditional sales agreements (until 31 January 2021);
Lease or rental agreements for commercial equipment (until 31 January 2021);
Event and tourism-related contracts (until 31 January 2021);
Construction and supply contracts (until 30 September 2021)
Under Part 2 of the Act, the party that is unable to perform their contractual obligations may file a Notification for Relief. If this Notification is disputed, the Notification may be referred to an Assessor.
Given the continual amendments to the Act, one should continue check and review the updates to the Act to ascertain if the relevant contract continues to qualify for temporary relief under the Act.
Estimated word count: 4461
Privacy & Cookies Policy