In <span class="news-text_italic-underline">The “Yangtze Harmony” [2026] SGHC 3</span>, the Singapore High Court held that it had the power to lift a stay of admiralty in rem proceedings, previously granted in favour of London-seated arbitration, in order to permit the claimant to enter judgment in rem in support of two in personam arbitral awards.
The dispute arose out of towage-related claims. The claimant, a company in the business of providing marine services, including the chartering of tugs, brought an admiralty action in rem against the defendant charterers. As security for its claims arising out of a towage contract, the defendant’s chartered vessel Yangtze Harmony (the “<span class="news-text_medium">vessel</span>”) was arrested by the claimant.
Since that contract contained an arbitration clause providing for arbitration in London, the in rem proceedings were stayed in favour of arbitration while the vessel was retained as security. Whilst the vessel remained under arrest, the claimant obtained leave of court for a judicial sale pending arbitration. The vessel was subsequently sold and the balance of the sale proceeds was paid into court and retained pending the outcome of the arbitral proceedings.
The claimant later obtained two in personam arbitral awards against the defendant. Although the claimant took steps to enforce the awards as court judgments, the award debtor failed to comply. The claimant’s difficulty was that the vessel, now represented by the sale proceeds, remained within a stayed in rem action. To overcome this, the claimant applied to lift the stay and sought leave to enter judgment in rem in terms of the arbitral awards, so that the sale proceeds could be applied towards satisfaction of the awards.
The Singapore High Court granted the application. It held that, when staying admiralty in rem proceedings in favour of arbitration, the court is empowered under section 7 of the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">International Arbitration Act 1994</span> (2020 Rev Ed) (“<span class="news-text_medium">IAA</span>”) to order that the arrested vessel, or equivalent security, be retained to ensure that a claimant is not left with an unenforceable award, whether in personam or otherwise. The court further held that, where an award debtor fails to satisfy an arbitral award, a claimant may apply to lift the stay and proceed to judgment in rem in order to enforce the award against the retained security.
Although this second step is not expressly articulated in section 7 of the IAA, the court considered it necessary to give practical effect to the power to retain security in the first place. The decision provides helpful clarification for parties and practitioners, particularly in shipping disputes, on how in personam arbitral awards may be enforced through admiralty in rem proceedings against vessels or their sale proceeds retained within the court’s jurisdiction.
<span class="news-text_medium">Case:</span> <span class="news-text_italic-underline">The “Yangtze Harmony” [2026] SGHC 3</span> (Singapore High Court, 7 January 2026, S Mohan J).
