MAINTEK COMPUTER (SUZHOU) CO LTD AND OTHERS v. BLUE ANCHOR LINE AND OTHERS

MAINTEK COMPUTER (SUZHOU) CO LTD AND OTHERS v. BLUE ANCHOR LINE AND OTHERS

Service on ECT was valid under Article 5(4) because the packet was voluntarily accepted and the mistaken cover sheet was trivial; clause 3 (nine month limitation) did not begin to run because the goods were never delivered in accordance with the ECB nor made available for collection, so the limitation did not bar the claim; conversion liability did not depend on negligence and ECT had no real prospect of success on liability; clause 7.4.3 arbitration requirement did not apply to the Plaintiffs because it is limited to the defined signatory Parties, therefore no stay to arbitration was granted.

Citation
MAINTEK COMPUTER (SUZHOU) CO LTD AND OTHERS v. BLUE ANCHOR LINE AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: MAINTEK COMPUTER (SUZHOU) CO. LTD.; 2nd Plaintiff: SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT EUROPE LIMITED; 3rd Plaintiff: SONY LOGISTICS EUROPE B.V.; 4th Plaintiff: SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT INC.; 5th Plaintiff: MITSUI SUMITOMO INSURANCE CO. LTD.; 1st Defendant: BLUE ANCHOR LINE; 2nd Defendant: TRANSPAC CONTAINER SYSTEM LTD.; 3rd Defendant: KUEHNE NAGEL LTD.; 4th Defendant: KUEHNE NAGEL N.V.; 5th Defendant: HAPAG-LLOYD AKTIENGESCELLSCHAFT; 6th Defendant: KUEHNE & NAGEL CUSTOMS B.V.; 7th Defendant: KUEHNE & NAGEL LOGISTICS B.V.; 8th Defendant: ECT DELTA TERMINAL B.V.; 9th Defendant: CARGO LINK BV; 10th Defendant: GIERROS TRANSPORT EN VERHUUR B.V.; 11th Defendant: MTC HAVENSERVICE EN KOERIERSDIENSTEN B.V.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 February 2010
Case Number
HCAJ106/2008
Procedural Posture
Admiralty Jurisdiction Action / Application to Set Aside Interlocutory Judgment and to Stay Proceedings to Arbitration
Outcome
ECT's application to set aside the interlocutory judgment and its application for a stay to arbitration are both refused
Legal Topics
Service of Process Under Hague Convention, Default Judgment, Set Aside, Limitation Clause, Himalaya Clause, Conversion, Strict Liability, Sub Bailment on Terms, Arbitration Clause, Stay to Arbitration
Source Language
EN
Admiralty Law Shipping Law Civil Procedure Arbitration Law Tort Law Contract Law Service of Process Under Hague Convention Default Judgment +8 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MAINTEK COMPUTER (SUZHOU) CO. LTD.

1st Plaintiff

SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT EUROPE LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

SONY LOGISTICS EUROPE B.V.

3rd Plaintiff

SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT INC.

4th Plaintiff

MITSUI SUMITOMO INSURANCE CO. LTD.

5th Plaintiff

BLUE ANCHOR LINE

1st Defendant

TRANSPAC CONTAINER SYSTEM LTD.

2nd Defendant

KUEHNE NAGEL LTD.

3rd Defendant

KUEHNE NAGEL N.V.

4th Defendant

HAPAG-LLOYD AKTIENGESCELLSCHAFT

5th Defendant

KUEHNE & NAGEL CUSTOMS B.V.

6th Defendant

KUEHNE & NAGEL LOGISTICS B.V.

7th Defendant

ECT DELTA TERMINAL B.V.

8th Defendant

CARGO LINK BV

9th Defendant

GIERROS TRANSPORT EN VERHUUR B.V.

10th Defendant

MTC HAVENSERVICE EN KOERIERSDIENSTEN B.V.

11th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Admiralty Jurisdiction Action / Application to Set Aside Interlocutory Judgment and to Stay Proceedings to Arbitration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service on ECT via courier to its post department was irregular under Article 5(4) Hague Convention
  2. 2 Whether ECT has a real prospect of success on liability (including time-bar under clause 3 of the ECB and applicability of clause 17(C) Himalaya clause)
  3. 3 Whether conversion is strict liability or requires negligence

Ratio Decidendi

Service on ECT was valid under Article 5(4) because the packet was voluntarily accepted and the mistaken cover sheet was trivial; clause 3 (nine month limitation) did not begin to run because the goods were never delivered in accordance with the ECB nor made available for collection, so the limitation did not bar the claim; conversion liability did not depend on negligence and ECT had no real prospect of success on liability; clause 7.4.3 arbitration requirement did not apply to the Plaintiffs because it is limited to the defined signatory Parties, therefore no stay to arbitration was granted.

Court Disposition

ECT's application to set aside the interlocutory judgment and its application for a stay to arbitration are both refused

Orders

  • Application to set aside interlocutory judgment dismissed
  • Application for stay to arbitration dismissed