29 Nov 2024
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant raised no arguable point of law and merely challenged the Tribunal's factual findings; the Tribunal correctly applied legal principles on non-delegable duty and vicarious liability to the facts, so there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal.
29 Nov 2024
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law; the Tribunal correctly stated and applied legal principles on non-delegable duty and vicarious liability to its factual findings, and the contested findings of causation and contractor status were matters of primary fact not amenable to appellate interference on a leave application.
14 May 2012
Defendant, as sub‑bailee/sub‑sub‑bailee, owed plaintiff duties under bailment and negligence and breached those duties by leaving goods unattended for 35 minutes which constituted wilful neglect; the limitation clause relied on either did not apply to the plaintiff (it governed Tian Ying) or did not cover negligence and, in any event, wilful neglect excluded reliance on the clause; accordingly judgment awarded to plaintiff for HK$83,377.32 with interest and costs.
17 Nov 2010
AXA's letters of 5 March and 14 April 2009 amounted to a repudiation/rejection of D3's indemnity claim by 14 April 2009; Condition 10(e)'s three-month limitation survives such repudiation; third party proceedings commence only when a third party notice is sealed and issued by the court registry; the 1st TPN was never in the custody of the court and its defect was not curable so the only valid commencement date is the 2nd TPN (23 July 2009), which was outside the three-month period; accordingly D3's third party claim was time-barred and plainly unsustainable and was struck out
25 Feb 2010
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.
4 Sept 2009
Transpac was liable for wrongfully releasing the cargo without presentation of the Bills of Lading; the defences of acquiescence, agency, transfer of property to Versia and the limitation in clause 18.3 failed; clause 18.3 did not apply to deliberate misdelivery and must be construed contra proferentem, therefore summary judgment for Star Line for the invoice value plus interest was appropriate.
1 Aug 2003
The Limitation Clause was clear and unambiguous and the Defendant's 10 May 2002 letter constituted an effective disclaimer that triggered the three-month forfeiture period; there was no estoppel or waiver, no ambiguity warranting contra proferentem, and no equitable basis to relieve the Plaintiff from forfeiture, therefore the claim was time-barred and struck out as an abuse of process.