WELL HOPED LTD AND ANOTHER v. NIPPON YUSEN KAISHA AND ANOTHER

WELL HOPED LTD AND ANOTHER v. NIPPON YUSEN KAISHA AND ANOTHER

Plaintiffs failed to show strong grounds to refuse a stay because the contract specified Japanese law and Tokyo jurisdiction, the substantive connecting factors and evidence are predominantly in Japan and a trial there is more convenient; however, because the Japanese limitation defence would otherwise extinguish...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WELL HOPED LTD AND ANOTHER v. NIPPON YUSEN KAISHA AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Well Hoped Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Ahmed Commercial Enterprises (a firm); 1st Defendant: Nippon Yusen Kaisha; 2nd Defendant: Paul Charles Harding
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 March 1982
Case Number
HCCL67/1981
Procedural Posture
Commercial List Action / Interlocutory Stay Application (in Chambers)
Outcome
Stay granted conditionally
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Clause, Forum Selection, Time Bar/limitation, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Bills of Lading, Stay of Proceedings, Multiplicity of Proceedings
Source Language
en
Maritime Law Contract Law Tort Private International Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Clause Forum Selection Time Bar/limitation +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Well Hoped Limited

1st Plaintiff

Ahmed Commercial Enterprises (a firm)

2nd Plaintiff

Nippon Yusen Kaisha

1st Defendant

Paul Charles Harding

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial List Action / Interlocutory Stay Application (in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the foreign jurisdiction clause in the bills of lading covers claims in tort including fraudulent misrepresentation
  2. 2 Whether the Hong Kong court should grant a stay in favour of the Tokyo courts
  3. 3 Effect of the Japanese limitation period (time bar) on the stay application

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiffs failed to show strong grounds to refuse a stay because the contract specified Japanese law and Tokyo jurisdiction, the substantive connecting factors and evidence are predominantly in Japan and a trial there is more convenient; however, because the Japanese limitation defence would otherwise extinguish the plaintiffs' remedy and the plaintiffs' delay was minimal and not deliberate, the stay is granted conditionally on the 1st defendant undertaking to waive the Japanese time bar if lawfully able to do so, failing which plaintiffs may apply to have the stay removed.

Court Disposition

Stay granted conditionally

Orders

  • All further proceedings stayed in Hong Kong and the action stayed in favour of the Tokyo courts on condition that the 1st defendant undertakes to waive the Japanese time bar if it is lawful to do so
  • If waiver of the Japanese time bar is not permissible the plaintiffs are at liberty to apply to have the stay removed