Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Demurrage

Legal area

Court

13 Aug 2013

ATLANTIC WIND SHIPPING LLC v. ZHOUSHAN XINZHOU OCEAN FISHERY CO LTD

Citation

ATLANTIC WIND SHIPPING LLC v. ZHOUSHAN XINZHOU OCEAN FISHERY CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ166/2011

With no defence or contradictory evidence, the court accepted the plaintiff’s affirmation evidence, applied established principle that demurrage accrues continuously after laytime is exceeded, calculated and awarded demurrage and passengers provision in the detailed amounts set out in the affirmations, allowed interest at 1% above US$ prime (4.25% to 22 July 2013) from the dates sums fell due, and allowed costs on summary assessment in the reduced sum of $195,000.
19 Nov 2009

ITALIA MARITTIMA S.p.A. AND ANOTHER v. TRANSLINK SHIPPING (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

ITALIA MARITTIMA S.p.A. AND ANOTHER v. TRANSLINK SHIPPING (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5080/2006

The court found on the evidence that the Defendant dealt as principal in the antecedent contracts and was liable for breach of those contracts and for the common-law implied warranty of fitness regarding dangerous goods; the subsequent bills of lading did not, on the facts, operate to absolve the Defendant of that liability; damages were assessed for demurrage and limited storage subject to mitigation principles and interest and costs were awarded to the Plaintiffs.
5 Aug 2009

RE SINOM (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

RE SINOM (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP73/2009

The injunction was refused because the statutory demand debt was not shown to be genuinely disputed and MGM demonstrated a reverse cross-claim of sufficient substance and quantum to offset the Company’s cross-claims such that restraining presentation of a winding-up petition was not justified; therefore the Company failed to show clear and persuasive grounds to restrain the statutory remedy.
25 Jan 2003

NATIONAL MARINE CORPORATION v. ASIA POWER SHIPPING (HK) LTD.

Citation

NATIONAL MARINE CORPORATION v. ASIA POWER SHIPPING (HK) LTD.
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1627/2002

Interim payment was refused because the defendants set-off claim had sufficient evidential merit based on documentary and oral evidence such that liability could not be regarded as admitted for the purposes of an interim payment; the set-off could not be fairly decided without direct evidence from key witnesses, so the summons was dismissed with costs.
24 Apr 2001

ESSEX MONITOR (HK) CO. LTD.v. HECNY SHIPPING LTD.

Citation

ESSEX MONITOR (HK) CO. LTD.v. HECNY SHIPPING LTD.
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ11403/2000

The deposit was an advance for potential disbursements; the defendant produced no credible evidence that extra costs were incurred and its own correspondence indicated refund was possible; therefore the defendant must refund the full deposit with interest and costs and judgment is entered for the plaintiff on the Order 14 summons.
31 Mar 1994

JOONG AND SHIPPING CO. LIMITED v. CHOI CHONG-SICK AND ANOTHER

Citation

JOONG AND SHIPPING CO. LIMITED v. CHOI CHONG-SICK AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1356/1994

The defendant's correspondence contained unequivocal admissions as to both liability and quantum for demurrage and freight, so there was no dispute within the meaning of Article 8 of the Model Law to refer to arbitration; consequently the court dismissed the application for a stay and entered summary judgment for the plaintiff.
6 Jan 1994

KOREA SONBAK SHIPPING COMPANY v. CHARTER HARVEST SHIPPING LIMITED

Citation

KOREA SONBAK SHIPPING COMPANY v. CHARTER HARVEST SHIPPING LIMITED
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL113/1993

Ord.41 r.5(2) is satisfied where a deponent identifies the source of information or belief even if underlying documents are not exhibited, provided the documents can be produced if required or an acceptable explanation is given; applying that rule the defendant's affidavit was admissible and the defendant demonstrated defences with a real prospect of success, so the default judgment was set aside and time extended to file a defence.
23 Nov 1993

WATERMAN INC v. SLIPFORM ENGINEERING LTD.

Citation

WATERMAN INC v. SLIPFORM ENGINEERING LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV33/1993

Because the defendant failed to pay the specifically identified US$48,000 within the contractual seven‑day period agreed as the condition of the compromise, the alleged collateral agreement did not become effective and the plaintiff retained the right to claim the full demurrage; consequently there were no triable issues on that point and summary judgment for the outstanding US$61,500 was properly entered and should be affirmed.
20 Mar 1990

METALLGESELLSCHAFT HONG KONG LTD v. CHINAPART LTD

Citation

METALLGESELLSCHAFT HONG KONG LTD v. CHINAPART LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV144/1989

Clause 17, on its true construction, imposed an absolute obligation on the buyer to unload within the stipulated discharge days rather than being an indemnity or quasi‑indemnity; there was no sufficiently strong basis to imply a duty to notify arrival; laytime began when the ship arrived and was ready to discharge as evidenced by the Master’s notice of readiness; therefore the court was entitled to enter judgment for the full amount claimed rather than staying proceedings under the arbitration agreement.
10 Jan 1986

TRANSATLANTIC SCHIFFAHRTSKONTOR GMBH v. VINCOR SHIPPING CO. LTD.

Citation

TRANSATLANTIC SCHIFFAHRTSKONTOR GMBH v. VINCOR SHIPPING CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL103/1985

The court found the defendant had a reasonably arguable case that Clause 18 did not by clear words exclude the common law/equitable right of set-off and that despatch claims were liquidated and therefore capable of set-off against freight; accordingly summary judgment could not be granted and the action was stayed in favour of arbitration under the charterparty and s.6A Cap.341.