Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bill of lading

Legal area

Court

8 Feb 2023

MINH DUC CONCRETE & CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. HONG KONG LEE YUAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 377
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ55/2021

Plaintiff proved the total loss of the cargo and, relying on invoice value as prima facie evidence of sound arrived value and Hong Kong law for quantification, is entitled to damages of US$1,057,314; interest at 1% above the US prime rate from 15 October 2021 to judgment and judgment rate thereafter; and costs summarily assessed at HK$675,330, payable forthwith.
21 May 2020

CALM OCEAN SHIPPING S.A. v. WIN GOAL TRADING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 801
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ118/2015

Representative action under O.15 r.12 was refused because (1) a realistic conflict of interest existed between D1-4 and potential claimants in the class, (2) the persons potentially interested were not shown to be 'numerous' as required by the rule, and (3) duties imposed on a reluctant representative would cause serious prejudice; however, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to permit joinder of Persons Unknown with amended, clear description and appropriate notification and service directions, including an order that the 1st Defendant notify any payer in writing, as necessary to a…
2 Dec 2016

CALM OCEAN SHIPPPING S.A. v. WIN GOAL TRADING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CALM OCEAN SHIPPPING S.A. v. WIN GOAL TRADING LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ118/2015

The Court dismissed the Plaintiff's summons because the interrogatories (paragraphs 1–4) did not relate to the issues pleaded in the action and thus failed the relevance requirement under RHC O 26, and paragraph 5 was unnecessary as the information had already been provided; a legitimate protective purpose did not overcome lack of relevance.
17 Mar 2016

THE OWNERS AND/OR THOSE ENTITLED TO SUE IN RESPECT OF A CARGO LATELY LADEN ON BOARD THE SHIP OR VESSEL “JIN HUI 588” v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL“JIN HUI 588”

Citation

THE OWNERS AND/OR THOSE ENTITLED TO SUE IN RESPECT OF A CARGO LATELY LADEN ON BOARD THE SHIP OR VESSEL “JIN HUI 588” v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL“JIN HUI 588”
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ139/2014

Clause 2 was construed as a non-exclusive, permissive jurisdiction clause; both the Owner and Top Grace by consenting to consolidation and by conduct effectively submitted to Hong Kong jurisdiction (and in rem arrest/acknowledgement reinforced submission); in the exercise of discretion a stay would cause prejudice and multiplicity of proceedings given Contech is a Hong Kong entity and the small value of the claim, therefore stay applications were dismissed.
21 Nov 2014

FULL SUM INTERNATIONAL CO LTD v. HONG KONG FOO WIN LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

FULL SUM INTERNATIONAL CO LTD v. HONG KONG FOO WIN LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2211/2014

The injunction is discharged; costs up to and including the hearing on 7 November 2014 are to be in the cause; costs from after 7 November 2014 up to the plaintiff's summons to discharge the injunction dated 17 November 2014 are to be paid by the plaintiff; the incidence of costs between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant is to be determined as part of the costs of the action; the 2nd defendant's relevant costs are treated as its costs generally and may be dealt with if it interpleads.
28 Apr 2014

JOYSPEED GLOBAL CARGO (CHINA) LTD v. MULITEX LTD

Citation

JOYSPEED GLOBAL CARGO (CHINA) LTD v. MULITEX LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ344/2010

The court found that the defendant's email of 24 August 2009 amounted to an express instruction authorising delivery without production of the original bill of lading, there was no implied term obliging the plaintiff to prepare switching bills, the plaintiff did not breach its duties as bailee, and the exemption clause was not incorporated or applicable; accordingly judgment for the plaintiff for freight and dismissal of the defendant's counterclaim.
2 Apr 2013

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

Citation

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

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ106/2008

Summary judgment was appropriate against the BAL Defendants (1st, 2nd and 4th as pleaded) because plaintiffs satisfied Order 14 preliminary requirements and the BAL Defendants failed to raise a credible defence on liability; Clause 3 time bar does not apply to non-delivery; Clause 17(B)I(2)(k) does not exclude liability for loss caused by failures which the carrier could have prevented by reasonable diligence (not force majeure); Clause 18.3 is a valid commercial limitation of liability and applies to negligent loss where consignor paid ordinary freight, but Clause 23.2 removes the limitation…
31 Jan 2013

KAI MIN FASHION (HK) LTD v. FOND EXPRESS LOGISTICS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

KAI MIN FASHION (HK) LTD v. FOND EXPRESS LOGISTICS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2367/2012

The applications for extension of time to appeal were dismissed because the 2nd defendant's delay was inexcusable and it failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success: the alleged pleading defects were trivial or curable and the evidence did not establish consent to release future shipments without original bills of lading sufficient to raise triable issues.
1 Nov 2012

THE OWNERS AND/OR THOSE ENTITLED TO SUE IN RESPECT OF A CARGO LATELY LADEN ON BOARD THE SHIP OR VESSEL “COSCO TIANJIN” v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARACTERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “COSCO TIANJIN”

Citation

THE OWNERS AND/OR THOSE ENTITLED TO SUE IN RESPECT OF A CARGO LATELY LADEN ON BOARD THE SHIP OR VESSEL “COSCO TIANJIN” v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARACTERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “COSCO TIANJIN”
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ177/2009

Security for costs was appropriate and should be ordered because the plaintiffs lack presence or assets in Hong Kong, enforcement of costs would be difficult, and the defendant has arguable defences on the merits such that plaintiffs do not have an overwhelming case. Having considered claim size, prior security and that security need not be indemnity, HK$250,000 was fixed as appropriate security and costs of the application were ordered to the defendant in the sum of $40,000.
29 May 2012

MEIKO TRANS CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHAN KWAN YIU t/a CHIN FUNG INTERNATIONAL TRADING CO AND ANOTHER

Citation

MEIKO TRANS CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHAN KWAN YIU t/a CHIN FUNG INTERNATIONAL TRADING CO AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1024/2011

The plaintiffs, as bailees for the owner Kee's who retained the original bill of lading, had the immediate right to possession; the defendants failed to prove that plaintiffs' right was extinguished by misdelivery, waiver, or that the defendants acquired good title from Baizhi; there was no adequate factual basis for a s3 Factors Ordinance defence; accordingly there were no triable issues and summary judgment was appropriate against the 2nd defendant.