The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship or Vessel "MCC Jakarta" v. The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship or Vessel "Xin Nan Tai 77"

The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship or Vessel "MCC Jakarta" v. The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship or Vessel "Xin Nan Tai 77"

The Court held that (1) sanctioned offers under RHC O 22 are not invalid merely because they include terms as to costs unless those terms conflict with mandatory RHC O 22 provisions; (2) the 1st and 3rd Jakarta offers were effective for costs purposes (service to TZ & Co was effective as TZ & Co was instructed to act and the Xiamen notice did not defeat that), entitling Jakarta to indemnity costs after the respective cut-off dates and enhanced interest on costs subject to proportionality; (3) where RHC O 22 does not neatly apply to offers between co-defendants or to offers addressed to multiple addressees, such offers may be treated as open offers in the collision context and attract...

Citation
The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship or Vessel "MCC Jakarta" v. The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship or Vessel "Xin Nan Tai 77"
Parties
Plaintiff in HCAJ 48/2011; 2nd Defendant in HCAJ 158/2012 and HCAJ 49/2013: MCC Jakarta; Plaintiff in HCAJ 158/2012 and HCAJ 49/2013: TS Singapore; Defendant in HCAJ 48/2011; 1st Defendant in HCAJ 158/2012 and HCAJ 49/2013: Xin Nan Tai
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 November 2017
Case Number
HCAJ48/2011
Procedural Posture
Admiralty Collision Actions (consolidated HCAJ 48/2011; 158/2012; 49/2013) / Costs Decision Following Trial on Liability
Legal Topics
Collision Liability and Apportionment, Sanctioned Offers (order 22), Calderbank/without Prejudice Save as to Costs Offers, Service of Documents and Address for Service, Indemnity Costs and Enhanced Interest, Taxation of Costs
Source Language
EN
Admiralty/maritime Law Civil Procedure Civil Costs Collision Liability and Apportionment Sanctioned Offers (order 22) Calderbank/without Prejudice Save as to Costs Offers Service of Documents and Address for Service Indemnity Costs and Enhanced Interest +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MCC Jakarta

Plaintiff in HCAJ 48/2011; 2nd Defendant in HCAJ 158/2012 and HCAJ 49/2013

TS Singapore

Plaintiff in HCAJ 158/2012 and HCAJ 49/2013

Xin Nan Tai

Defendant in HCAJ 48/2011; 1st Defendant in HCAJ 158/2012 and HCAJ 49/2013

Procedural Posture

Admiralty Collision Actions (consolidated HCAJ 48/2011; 158/2012; 49/2013) / Costs Decision Following Trial on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether purported sanctioned offers under RHC O 22 were valid and the costs consequences arising under RHC O 22 r 24
  2. 2 Whether offers that include terms as to costs are invalid per se or only if they conflict with mandatory RHC O 22 consequences
  3. 3 Whether service of sanctioned offers to a foreign law firm was effective given address for service rules

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that (1) sanctioned offers under RHC O 22 are not invalid merely because they include terms as to costs unless those terms conflict with mandatory RHC O 22 provisions; (2) the 1st and 3rd Jakarta offers were effective for costs purposes (service to TZ & Co was effective as TZ & Co was instructed to act and the Xiamen notice did not defeat that), entitling Jakarta to indemnity costs after the respective cut-off dates and enhanced interest on costs subject to proportionality; (3) where RHC O 22 does not neatly apply to offers between co-defendants or to offers addressed to multiple addressees, such offers may be treated as open offers in the collision context and attract...