编者按：本文转载自LOSS PREVENTION防损通函，由Andrew Liu & Co., Ltd发布，与各位读者在法律视窗中分享。
2015年1月，新加坡5人上诉庭首次开庭审理海事案件。上诉庭推翻了新加坡高院的判决，认为可以基于预期违约，合法扣押船舶“STX MUMBAI”轮。这5位上诉法官做出的判决有理有据，是人们期盼已久的。
简要概况
2013年，Transocean Oil Pte Ltd (以下简称Transocean)向STX MUMBAI轮供应燃油。到期付款日为30天信用期届满后，即2013年6月16日。2013年6月14日，Transocean向STX MUMBAI轮的船东提起对物诉讼并扣船。Transocean称STX MUMBAI轮的船东预期违约燃油供应合同，理由是STX集团破产，船东将没有能力支付燃油费。
判决
Transocean成功上诉，推翻了新加坡高院的判决，主张未付燃油费索赔及扣押STX MUMBAI轮。新加坡高院认为：
Transocean在30天信用期届满之前就采取行动，是过早的且在法律上不成立。
从法律上讲，破产不等同于不履行合约。理由是，履约过程中，当付款成为仅存的唯一义务时，在新加坡法律下不能认定预期违约。
Transocean扣押STX MUMBAI轮的行为是恶意的，需要探讨错误扣船导致的损失。
上诉法院推翻高院判决，支持Transocean的口头辩词，具体如下：
预期违约应同时适用于履行中和待履行的合同。即，法院应关注事实，从而判断是否已不可能履行合同，或是否有不履行合同的意图；并且STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd的破产妨碍了燃油费的支付，因为清算人没有理由承认并支付这笔费用。
启示
上诉法院尚未发布判决依据。相信该判决依据将澄清新加坡法律下，与预期违约、破产和扣船相关的重要法律原则。
信息来源：Gard P&I Club
Singapore - arrest on basis of anticipatory breach was lawful
A five-member Court of Appeal heard its first Admiralty case in Singapore in January 2015. It reversed the decision of the Singapore High Court, finding that the vessel STX MUMBAI could be lawfully arrested on the basis of an anticipatory breach. The reasoned judgment from the panel of the five appeal judges is eagerly awaited.
Brief facts
Transocean Oil Pte Ltd (Transocean) supplied bunkers to the STX MUMBAI in 2013. Payment was due on 16 June 2013, when the 30 day credit period expired. On 14 June 2013, Transocean commenced in rem proceedings against the owners of the STX MUMBAI and arrested the vessel. Transocean claimed that owners of the STX MUMBAI were in anticipatory breach of the bunker supply contract because the STX Group was insolvent and the owners would be unable to pay the price of the bunkers.
Judgments
Transocean successfully appealed the Singapore High Court decision to strike out its claim for unpaid bunkers and the order to set aside its warrant of arrest against the STX MUMBAI. The High Court had found that:
Transocean’s action was premature and legally unsustainable as it was commenced prior to the expiry of the 30 day credit period.
Insolvency does not amount to repudiation of a contract as a matter of law and observed that the doctrine of anticipatory breach may not be available under Singapore law in executed contracts where the only obligation left is to make payment.
Transocean acted in bad faith in arresting the STX MUMBAI and ordered an inquiry as to damages for wrongful arrest.
The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision and found in favour of Transocean on the basis of its oral arguments that:
a single test of anticipatory breach should apply in both executed and executory contracts, i.e. the Court should look at the facts and determine whether it was impossible to perform the contract; or if there was an intention not to perform; and
the insolvency of STX Pan Ocean Co Ltd precluded the bunker price from being paid as there was no incentive for the liquidator to admit the debt for payment.
Implications
The Court of Appeal has not yet issued its grounds of decision. It is expected that these grounds will clarify important principles of law in Singapore regarding anticipatory breach, insolvency and arrest of vessels.
Source of Information: Gard P&I Club