ZHOUSHAN XINHONG AQUATIC CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. SINO TRANS LTD AND ANOTHER

ZHOUSHAN XINHONG AQUATIC CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. SINO TRANS LTD AND ANOTHER

Stay dismissed because the 1st Defendant failed to prove the specific bill of lading terms and, even if proved, there was a strong risk that Clause 24 (9-month time bar) would operate in the PRC to extinguish plaintiffs' claims; granting a stay would likely cause prejudice, multiplicity of proceedings and possible futility, so plaintiffs showed strong cause not to grant a stay.

Citation
ZHOUSHAN XINHONG AQUATIC CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. SINO TRANS LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Zhoushan Xinhong Aquatic Co. Ltd.; 2nd Plaintiff: Kyoritsu Shoji Co. Ltd.; 1st Defendant: Sino Trans Limited; 2nd Defendant: China Shipping Container Lines (Hong Kong) Co. Ltd.
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 August 2006
Case Number
DCCJ540/2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Maritime Cargo Damage (contract/tort/bailment) / Application for Stay of Proceedings to Foreign Court; Hearing and Decision
Outcome
1st Defendant's application to stay proceedings dismissed
Legal Topics
Forum Selection Clause, Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause, Stay of Proceedings, Bill of Lading Terms, Time Bar/limitation, Burden of Proof for Contractual Terms, Multiplicity of Proceedings
Source Language
EN
Maritime Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Private International Law Conflict of Laws Forum Selection Clause Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause Stay of Proceedings +4 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zhoushan Xinhong Aquatic Co. Ltd.

1st Plaintiff

Kyoritsu Shoji Co. Ltd.

2nd Plaintiff

Sino Trans Limited

1st Defendant

China Shipping Container Lines (Hong Kong) Co. Ltd.

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Maritime Cargo Damage (contract/tort/bailment) / Application for Stay of Proceedings to Foreign Court; Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the alleged exclusive jurisdiction clause on the bill of lading formed part of the contract
  2. 2 Whether the Hong Kong court should stay proceedings in favour of the Ningbo Maritime Court
  3. 3 Whether the 1st Defendant discharged the burden of proving the bill of lading terms

Ratio Decidendi

Stay dismissed because the 1st Defendant failed to prove the specific bill of lading terms and, even if proved, there was a strong risk that Clause 24 (9-month time bar) would operate in the PRC to extinguish plaintiffs' claims; granting a stay would likely cause prejudice, multiplicity of proceedings and possible futility, so plaintiffs showed strong cause not to grant a stay.

Court Disposition

1st Defendant's application to stay proceedings dismissed

Orders

  • Application to stay dismissed
  • Costs nisi: 1st Defendant to pay the Plaintiffs' costs to be taxed if not agreed