Liwen 

LEUNG

Liwen is a Research Associate at the Centre for Maritime Law (CML). He holds LLB (Upper Second Class Honours) and LLM (Maritime Law) degrees from NUS Law. He joined the CML after a short stint in legal practice. He is one of the contributors to the CML CMI database project, and his work has been cited by the Singapore Court of Appeal. He is currently a PhD candidate at NUS Law.

Presentations

• “Should there be a Negligence Exception to the Autonomy Principle for Letters of Credit?”, CML Researchers Seminar, NUS Law, 12 January 2022
• “Problems in Determining the Proper Law of the Contract in the Context of Letters of Credit”, CML Researchers Seminar, NUS Law, 22 September 2022
• “The Development of Singapore’s Admiralty Jurisdiction”, CML Researchers Seminar, NUS Law, 08 February 2023
• “Examining Wrongful Arrest under Admiralty Law”, CML Researchers Seminar, NUS Law, 06 September 2023
• “Liability for wrongful arrest under Admiralty Law: Reasons to Lower the Malice Threshold”, CML Researchers Seminar, NUS Law, 06 March 2024
• “Mitigating Losses arising out of Wrongful Ship Arrest”, CML Researchers Seminar, NUS Law, 14 November 2024
• “Wrongful Arrests, Wrong Forums, and Contractual Wrongs”, CML Researchers Seminar, NUS Law, 09 April 2025
• “Wrongful Ship Arrest, Economic Torts, and Property Torts”, CML Researchers Seminar, NUS Law, 06 November 2025

Selected Publications

• “Should There Be a Negligence Exception to the Autonomy Principle for Letters of Credit?”, [2024] LMCLQ 275-303

Working Papers

• “Problems in Determining the Proper Law of the Contract in Confirmed Letters of Credit”, (2025) CML Working Paper Series, CML-WPS-2507
• “Should There Be a Negligence Exception to the Autonomy Principle for Letters of Credit?”, (2023) CML Working Paper Series, CML-WPS-2302

• Admiralty Law and Practice
• Carriage of Goods by Sea
• Maritime Conflict of Laws
• Maritime Law
• Trade Finance Law

Research Project

Examining wrongful arrest under admiralty law

Ship arrest is the key feature of an action in rem under admiralty law. It is a valuable remedy that is only available to recognised maritime claimants. By arresting a ship, the maritime claimant obtains security for its claim in the form of the unencumbered equity of the ship arrested. In contrast, the shipowner might incur substantial losses arising out of its loss of use of its ship. Even the threat of ship arrest itself can persuade some shipowners to either settle outstanding maritime claims against them or put up alternative security.

If the shipowner fails to defend against the arrest proceedings, the ship can be sold by the court to obtain sale proceeds, against which the maritime claimant can enforce a favourable court judgment. If the shipowner appears, the ship will be released from arrest either if the shipowner puts up satisfactory substitute security or if the shipowner proves that the arrest was wrongful. In some cases, the shipowner is unable to achieve either the former or the latter at once. Substantial losses can fall upon the shipowner in the meantime.

Compensation for such losses will not be automatically awarded to the shipowner even if the arrest was ultimately found to be wrongful. This is because, in most major common law jurisdictions, the shipowner will first need to prove that the claimant was extremely blameworthy in arresting the ship before damages for wrongful arrest can be awarded. The threshold of malice or bad faith must be met: The Evangelismos (1858) 12 Moo PC 352. The shipowner can therefore be left without compensation. The Evangelismos threshold has attracted much judicial comment and academic debate: see eg The Vasiliy Golovnin [2008] SGCA 39, [2008] 4 SLR(R) 994; The Alkyon [2018] EWCA Civ 2760, [2019] QB 969.

This project will evaluate the Evangelismos threshold and examine whether the Evangelismos threshold ought to be reformed or retained.