Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Collision at sea

Legal area

Court

15 Nov 2018

BRIGHT SHIPPING LTD v. CHANGHONG GROUP (HK) LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2474
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ3/2018

Changhong failed to establish at stage 1 that the Shanghai Maritime Court is clearly and distinctly more appropriate than Hong Kong for trial of the inter-ship action; documentary and investigatory evidence was available to Hong Kong, parallel Mainland proceedings were unserved on the plaintiff and not determinative, and the plaintiff would lose a legitimate juridical advantage (notably the higher Hong Kong tonnage limitation and time‑bar consequences in the Mainland) if a stay were granted; accordingly the stay application was dismissed.
30 Nov 2017

The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship or Vessel “TS Singapore” v. The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship or Vessel “Xin Nan Tai 77” AND ANOTHER

Citation

The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship or Vessel “TS Singapore” v. The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship or Vessel “Xin Nan Tai 77” AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ158/2012

Sanctioned offers that comply with RHC Order 22 and are properly made and served attract the r24 consequences; offers that fail mandatory requirements (notably r5(7)) are invalid as sanctioned offers; offers between defendants that do not fit the Order 22 scheme may be treated as open offers and still have costs consequences; Where a valid sanctioned or effective open offer is not beaten by the offeree, the court will generally order indemnity costs after the cut-off date and may award enhanced interest on those costs at a proportionate rate; offers marked Without Prejudice save as to costs c…
2 Jun 2017

The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship or Vessel “TS Singapore” v. The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship or Vessel “Xin Nan Tai 77” AND ANOTHER

Citation

The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship or Vessel “TS Singapore” v. The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship or Vessel “Xin Nan Tai 77” AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ49/2013

Both Xin Nan Tai and Jakarta breached COLREGS and contributed to the 1st collision, but Xin Nan Tai was principally at fault for creating a close-quarters situation by failing to give way, failing proper lookout and making an inadequate late 10° alteration; Jakarta breached duties by inadequate lookout, excessive speed and improper port alterations but those faults were less causatively potent. Apportionment for both collisions is 80% Xin Nan Tai : 20% Jakarta; for the 2nd collision the parties agreed Singapore 5% and Xin Nan Tai and Jakarta 95% between them in the same 80:20 ratio.
2 Jun 2017

The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship or Vessel “TS Singapore” v. The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship or Vessel “Xin Nan Tai 77” AND ANOTHER

Citation

The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship or Vessel “TS Singapore” v. The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship or Vessel “Xin Nan Tai 77” AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ158/2012

Both Xin Nan Tai and Jakarta breached COLREGS and were causes of the collisions, but Xin Nan Tai bore the greater responsibility for creating the close-quarters situation by failing to take early and substantial action and by inadequate lookout; Jakarta also breached lookout and made improper helm orders but was less blameworthy; liability apportioned 80% to Xin Nan Tai and 20% to Jakarta for the 1st collision and the same apportionment applies to the 2nd collision; TS Singapore is 5% liable for the 2nd collision and not liable for the 1st collision as per settlement.
18 Sept 2013

CALANDRA SHIPPING CO LTD v. NOOR MARITIME LTD

Citation

CALANDRA SHIPPING CO LTD v. NOOR MARITIME LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ109/2011

The application was dismissed because it was defective and improperly made: Order 75 r18(10) applications belong to the Registrar and are linked to a referral for assessment under r18(11); the defendant did not seek a reference to the Registrar and offered no cogent reason to depart from the established practice of determining liability before assessing damages, so there was no legal basis to order particulars or pre-trial assessment of damages.
18 Jan 2013

SUNGLEAM MARITIME LTD v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL HE DA 98 AND SISTER SHIP SHUN CHENG

Citation

SUNGLEAM MARITIME LTD v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL HE DA 98 AND SISTER SHIP SHUN CHENG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ200/2007

Plaintiff had established entitlement to recover the particularized out‑of‑pocket expenses and loss of hire because the plaintiff acted reasonably and with necessary expedition to mitigate loss given limited yard availability and urgency; superintendent and other ancillary costs were reasonable; the US$380,000 repair bill was paid and justified; Rightship approval was maintained so off‑hire loss was recoverable; accordingly total damages of US$1,383,534.22 were awarded with interest and costs.
4 Aug 2009

YIP KAM AND ANOTHER v. ZHONGSHAN FOODSTUFFS & AQUATIC IMPORT & EXPORT GROUP CO LTD OF GUANGDONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

YIP KAM AND ANOTHER v. ZHONGSHAN FOODSTUFFS & AQUATIC IMPORT & EXPORT GROUP CO LTD OF GUANGDONG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ31/2008

The court refused to exercise its discretion to extend the statutory 2-year limitation because the plaintiff did not establish good reason for the delay (could have sought legal aid earlier; awaiting police investigation and mistaken legal advice did not suffice), the delay was not negligible, the defendant did not contribute to the delay, and the defendant would likely suffer prejudice from loss of key witnesses; accordingly the Writ was struck out and the actions dismissed.
6 Sept 1995

KARA MARA SHIPPING CO LTD v. WORLD TANKER CARRIERS CORPORATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

KARA MARA SHIPPING CO LTD v. WORLD TANKER CARRIERS CORPORATION AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ37/1995

Because the majority of claims and parties arising from the collision were before the New Orleans federal court, New Orleans was the clearly and distinctly more appropriate forum for consolidated resolution; the plaintiff's claimed limitation advantage in Hong Kong was illusory since defendants would not advance counterclaims there; anti-suit relief was inappropriate absent extreme oppression and in the face of comity and an available fair forum, so the Hong Kong proceedings were stayed and the anti-suit injunction refused.
24 May 1994

LEE KWAN YEUNG v. THE PILOTAGE AUTHORITY

Citation

LEE KWAN YEUNG v. THE PILOTAGE AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP521/1994

The court found no sufficient evidence that the Appellant knew the DSR Atlantic was in difficulty when he failed to respond to VHF calls; the Board erred in attributing to the Appellant knowledge concealed by alleged lies. That error materially affected the justification for the 12 month suspension, warranting interference: the suspension was reduced so the Appellant's licence should be reinstated on handing down (approximately a 3 month effective suspension) and costs awarded to the Appellant.
10 Mar 1993

CHAN LAI YING v. LI FO MUI AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAN LAI YING v. LI FO MUI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ386/1990

The court found on the facts that the situation was a crossing, not overtaking, and that the plaintiff had pleaded only an overtaking negligence claim under Rule 13; because the pleaded claim did not cover a general-duty or crossing breach, the plaintiff could not succeed on an alternative negligence theory and the claim was dismissed.