Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sister ship arrest

Legal area

Court

3 Jun 2015

THE OWNERS AND/OR THOSE ENTITLED TO SUE IN RESPECT OF A CARGO LATELY LADEN ON BOARD THE SHIP OR VESSEL “BO SHI JI 393” v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL“BO SHI JI 393” AND THE OTHER SHIPS OR VESSELS NAMED IN SCHEDULE “A”

Citation

THE OWNERS AND/OR THOSE ENTITLED TO SUE IN RESPECT OF A CARGO LATELY LADEN ON BOARD THE SHIP OR VESSEL “BO SHI JI 393” v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL“BO SHI JI 393” AND THE OTHER SHIPS OR VESSELS NAMED IN SCHEDULE “A”
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ44/2014

On the available evidence, including the Vessel Ownership Registration Certificates which the court accepted as the best evidence of registry entries, the requirements of section 12B(4) HCO were satisfied: BWTC (and co-owner Liang in respect of 393) were registered/treated as owners such that the relevant person requirement and the beneficial ownership requirement for sister ship arrest were met; accordingly the applications to set aside service/arrest and to strike out were dismissed.
26 Jun 2014

ALLIANZ MARINE SERVICES LLC v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “ALMOJIL 61”

Citation

ALLIANZ MARINE SERVICES LLC v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “ALMOJIL 61”
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ9/2013

The court held AMI did not acquire a beneficial interest in the vessel because the Agreement and AMI's conduct evidenced a loan and only a right to proceeds; absent fraud or wholly exceptional circumstances the ship registry showing MMG as registered owner is virtually conclusive of beneficial ownership as respects all shares, therefore MMG was the beneficial owner and the court had in rem jurisdiction; AMI's summons was dismissed.
26 Jun 2014

ARINA OFFSHORE JLT v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “ALMOJIL 61”

Citation

ARINA OFFSHORE JLT v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “ALMOJIL 61”
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ164/2012

The Agreement showed AMI provided funds by way of a loan repayable from sale proceeds and did not create or reserve a proportionate beneficial interest; absent fraud or exceptional circumstances a vessel's registration is virtually conclusive of legal and beneficial ownership, therefore MMG was the beneficial owner of all shares at the time of the writ and the Jurisdiction Summons fails.
27 Jun 1985

ALEENA SHIPPING INC. v. THE OWNERS OF AND OTHER PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE SHIP "ATHENIAN ZOE"

Citation

ALEENA SHIPPING INC. v. THE OWNERS OF AND OTHER PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE SHIP "ATHENIAN ZOE"
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ147/1985

Failure to state the beliefs required by Order 75 r5(8)(b) in the founding affidavit is a procedural irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect; the court may allow the irregularity to be cured by permitting a supplemental affirmation where the substantive evidence supporting s.3(4) is already before the court. Accordingly leave to file a supplemental affirmation was granted and costs of the contested hearing were awarded to the defendants.
22 Oct 1980

NANPO RINGYO KAISHA LTD v. THE OWNERS OF AND ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE SHIPS OR VESSELS "JELAU", "BIAK", "SENYIUR", "LONG TESAK" AND "KONG FAT" (ALL PANAMANIAN FLAG) AND "PANGEMPANG" (INDONESIAN FLAG) AND OTHERS

Citation

NANPO RINGYO KAISHA LTD v. THE OWNERS OF AND ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE SHIPS OR VESSELS "JELAU", "BIAK", "SENYIUR", "LONG TESAK" AND "KONG FAT" (ALL PANAMANIAN FLAG) AND "PANGEMPANG" (INDONESIAN FLAG) AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ201/1979

The court held that the affidavit, though imperfect and open to criticism for non-disclosure of some sources, contained sufficient grounds of belief to justify issuance/maintenance of the warrant and need not prove a full prima facie case on affidavit; the court affirmed its power to investigate beneficial ownership (pierce corporate veils) for jurisdictional purposes and ordered cross-examination and limited document production where veracity and completeness of affidavit evidence were contested.
24 May 1978

ALI HASSAN SULEIMAN v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIPS OR VESSELS "JAPAN BEAR", "PACIFIC BEAR", "GOLDEN BEAR" AND "THOMAS E. CUFFE" (ALL USA FLAG)

Citation

ALI HASSAN SULEIMAN v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIPS OR VESSELS "JAPAN BEAR", "PACIFIC BEAR", "GOLDEN BEAR" AND "THOMAS E. CUFFE" (ALL USA FLAG)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ53/1978

The court held it had jurisdiction in rem: the company remained the beneficial owner of the ships for the purposes of the Act, the plaintiffs could not be preempted by an automatic recognition of the U.S. Chapter 11 stay as depriving Hong Kong jurisdiction, and the proper remedy was not to set aside the writs but to stay the actions only until plaintiffs rectified specified procedural defects; consequently no broad stay was granted on grounds of foreign bankruptcy or lack of jurisdiction.
24 May 1978

STEAMCO SHIPPING AGENCIES v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIPS OR VESSELS "JAPAN BEAR", "PACIFIC BEAR", "GOLDEN BEAR" AND "THOMAS E. CUFFE" (ALL USA FLAG)

Citation

STEAMCO SHIPPING AGENCIES v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIPS OR VESSELS "JAPAN BEAR", "PACIFIC BEAR", "GOLDEN BEAR" AND "THOMAS E. CUFFE" (ALL USA FLAG)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ62/1978

The court held that (1) the plaintiffs were entitled to proceed in rem but were effectively limited to one arrest/security consistent with the one-ship doctrine; (2) the company under U.S. Chapter 11 (debtor in possession) remained the beneficial owner of the ships for the purpose of the Act and admiralty jurisdiction was not ousted by the American proceedings; (3) the defendants failed to establish sufficient reason to grant a stay on comity/insolvency grounds because the Chapter 11 process was rehabilitative and did not amount to a pending universal distribution; and (4) however, the court…
24 May 1978

CHEUNG TAK UNITED CO LTD v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIPS OR VESSELS "PACIFIC BEAR", "JAPAN BEAR", "GOLDEN BEAR" AND "THOMAS E. CUFFE" (ALL USA FLAG)

Citation

CHEUNG TAK UNITED CO LTD v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIPS OR VESSELS "PACIFIC BEAR", "JAPAN BEAR", "GOLDEN BEAR" AND "THOMAS E. CUFFE" (ALL USA FLAG)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ54/1978

The court held it has jurisdiction in rem against the defendants' ships; the company (debtor in possession) remained the beneficial owner of the four ships for the purposes of the Act; plaintiffs are entitled only one arrest/security in respect of sister ships (exercise by arrest/threat constitutes election); the US Chapter 11 proceedings did not require a stay of the Hong Kong admiralty actions as a matter of comity; however the court stayed the actions only until plaintiffs furnished specified particulars; otherwise writs were not set aside and plaintiffs were awarded costs with certificate…
24 May 1978

OWNERS OF CARGO LATELY LADEN ON BOARD THE "GOLDEN BEAR" (U.S.A. FLAG) v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIPS OR VESSELS "GOLDEN BEAR", "PACIFIC BEAR", "JAPAN BEAR" AND "THOMAS E. CUFFE" (ALL USA FLAG)

Citation

OWNERS OF CARGO LATELY LADEN ON BOARD THE "GOLDEN BEAR" (U.S.A. FLAG) v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIPS OR VESSELS "GOLDEN BEAR", "PACIFIC BEAR", "JAPAN BEAR" AND "THOMAS E. CUFFE" (ALL USA FLAG)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ58/1978

The court held it had admiralty jurisdiction to entertain the writs because Pacific Far East Lines remained the beneficial owner of the ships within the meaning of the Act despite Chapter 11 proceedings; plaintiffs are entitled to arrest or security against only one ship and multiple writs do not permit arrest of multiple sister ships; foreign law rights will not be treated as maritime liens beyond the traditional categories for jurisdictional purposes; the US Chapter 11 moratorium did not automatically require a stay in Hong Kong because those proceedings were rehabilitative and not a proces…
24 May 1978

MOBIL SALES AND SUPPLY CORPORATION v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIPS OR VESSELS "GOLDEN BEAR" AND "PACIFIC BEAR" (BOTH USA FLAG)

Citation

MOBIL SALES AND SUPPLY CORPORATION v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIPS OR VESSELS "GOLDEN BEAR" AND "PACIFIC BEAR" (BOTH USA FLAG)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ19/1978

The court held that it had jurisdiction in rem: the US Chapter 11 moratorium did not automatically deprive the Hong Kong Admiralty court of jurisdiction and did not render the company not the beneficial owner of the ships for purposes of the Act; the established categories of maritime lien are to be applied by the lex fori and foreign rights will only be treated as maritime liens if they meet those attributes; plaintiffs are constrained by the one‑ship doctrine (may obtain only one arrest/security) and cannot circumvent it by service alone; however, the court refused to grant a substantive st…