Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Hague‑visby rules

Legal area

Court

13 Aug 2021

PERFECT BEST ASSET MANAGEMENT INC. v. ADL EXPRESS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2310
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA937/2016

1st Defendant liable for unauthorized release/misdelivery because it was the contractual combined transport operator in respect of the CB/Ls and failed to prove lawful telex release authority or effective agency for Yang Ming; Trading Conditions did not apply where CB/Ls governed; time-bar defences under the CB/L and HVR failed; however Plaintiff failed to prove actual loss because its own Payment Record and correspondence established that the buyer had paid for the containers; accordingly Plaintiff awarded nominal damages only (HK$1,000) and claim for substantive damages dismissed; action ag…
29 Mar 2019

LI LIAN INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS v. HERPORT HONG KONG LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 826
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ160/2015

Clause 3(b) of the NYK bill of lading is a valid, exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the Tokyo District Court covering "any and all actions against the Carrier in respect of the Goods or arising out of the Carriage"; Herport was contractually bound to sue NYK in Tokyo and bore the heavy burden of showing strong reasons to proceed in breach of that clause, which it failed to discharge; material nondisclosure by Herport in its ex parte application was found; accordingly the Master’s leave to serve out and the service on NYK were set aside.
9 Apr 2018

BENCHMARK ELECTRONICS (THAILAND) PCL AND OTHERS v. CARGO CONTRAINER LINE LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 699
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ65/2016

Because the writ and its endorsement showed the plaintiffs always intended to sue the carrier under the bills of lading (CCL BVI) and there was no reasonable doubt as to the identity of the intended defendant, correcting the defendant's address was a clarification, not a substitution of a new party; therefore the amendment under O 20 r 1 was permissible and the defendant's summons to set aside service and dismiss the action failed.
22 May 2017

MORPOL S.A AND OTHERS v. BLUE ANCHOR LINE AND ANOTHER

Citation

MORPOL S.A AND OTHERS v. BLUE ANCHOR LINE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ150/2014

The action was transferred because the pleaded case is a contractual carriage/bailment claim which falls within the District Court's statutory jurisdiction (s32 Cap 336) and is below the monetary limit; s12A does not make High Court jurisdiction exclusive; bailment claims can be characterised as contract and/or tort depending on facts; s12B(1) does not confer an absolute right to insist on High Court determination; and the issues were not of sufficient importance or complexity to justify retention under s43(3).
10 Jan 2017

AIG EUROPE LTD AND OTHERS v. FAST- LINK EXPRESS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

AIG EUROPE LTD AND OTHERS v. FAST- LINK EXPRESS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ114/2014

The court dismissed the stay application. It held the 4th defendant had not shown staying Hong Kong proceedings until final determination of Japanese actions was necessary or justified: the 4th defendant is not a party to those actions, could seek access to Japanese court files as a non-party, could seek evidence from its subcontractor Mitsui, and the proposed stay would cause injustice and grave prejudice to plaintiffs by indefinite delay; the circumstances were not rare or compelling.
8 Apr 2014

FASTPORT CARGO SERVICE LTD v. KFIC LOGISTICS (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

FASTPORT CARGO SERVICE LTD v. KFIC LOGISTICS (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4438/2013

The defendant failed to show the claim was plainly and obviously time-barred or an abuse of process: there was insufficient evidence to imply a one-year limitation clause into the contract; the Hague-Visby one-year rule, on its face, applies to carriers not shippers and does not establish the claim was time-barred; disputed facts favor the plaintiff; and late-raised jurisdiction/forum non conveniens points could not support a strike-out. The summons to strike out was dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
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.
3 Aug 2011

S NET FREIGHT (HK) LTD v. NAMSUNG SHIPPING CO LTD

Citation

S NET FREIGHT (HK) LTD v. NAMSUNG SHIPPING CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL13/2010

Namsung's application was dismissed because the governing law and jurisdiction clauses in the Master Bill of Lading were ambiguous and, on proper construction in light of COGSO and the Hague-Visby Rules, did not confer exclusive Korean jurisdiction over the present indemnity claim; Hong Kong is the clearly more appropriate forum (including because of the existing Star Rich proceedings), and material non-disclosure by S-Net did not warrant setting aside Stone J's leave where the outcome would not materially differ and a costs sanction is the appropriate remedy.
1 Mar 2010

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

The court held that ECB cl.18.3 could not be construed to limit ECT's liability to US$2 per kg because the clause is ambiguous and must be construed contra proferentem, and because ECT's conduct amounted at least to negligence and in fact recklessness such that cl.23.2 removes the limitation; similarly Sea Waybill cl.5(1)(b) could not absolve liability for misdelivery after discharge where the carrier failed to exercise reasonable care under cl.3(2)(b). Therefore the proper measure is the invoice value of the lost goods.
30 Sept 2009

SUNRICH TRADERS LTD v. POLYCOTTON SL AND OTHERS

Citation

SUNRICH TRADERS LTD v. POLYCOTTON SL AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL36/2006

Defendants accepted plaintiff's instructions to return the uncollected containers and remained responsible under the original bills of lading and as bailees; the April 19 2004 letter did not terminate that responsibility; defendants failed to prove they had parted with possession without negligence or to identify a valid delivery event for time‑bar reliance, and therefore are liable to plaintiff for the value of the lost goods and ancillary sums.