Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Action in rem

Legal area

Court

23 Dec 2014

STELLAR OCEAN TRANSPORT LLC v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “RUBY STAR”

Citation

STELLAR OCEAN TRANSPORT LLC v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “RUBY STAR”
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV133/2014

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal because the plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the lump sum claims, as pleaded at the time the writ was issued, were claims in respect of goods supplied to the ship (notably bunkers) within s12A(2); the appropriation relied on occurred after commencement and admiralty jurisdiction must exist at commencement, so the Court had no in rem jurisdiction over the vessel.
28 Mar 2001

THE JIAN SHE 32

Citation

THE JIAN SHE 32
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ232/2000

The court construed the caveat, the subsequent acknowledgement and the bail bond consistently: the word 'owners' was limited to beneficial owners of the vessels and did not include demise charterers; accordingly there was no admiralty in rem jurisdiction against the owners in respect of claims that lie against the demise charterer and the plaintiffs' primary and subsidiary cases failed.
12 Jul 2000

THE TIAN SHENG NO.8 (OWNER OF THE SHIP) v. OWNERS OF CARGO

Citation

THE TIAN SHENG NO.8 (OWNER OF THE SHIP) v. OWNERS OF CARGO
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV6/2000

The Court held that for a registered ship 'owner' in s.12B(4)(b) means the registered owner; the cargo owners failed to prove Ocean was the registered owner and therefore the in rem jurisdiction over the ship was misconceived; the Court exercised its discretion to grant an extension of time to consider the point and accordingly allowed the appeal, set aside the warrant of arrest and ordered the bail bond returned for cancellation.
9 Mar 1992

GULF MARINE AND INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES INC. v. HE DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL M.V. \'TRIDENT DAWN\' (QATAR FLAG)

Citation

GULF MARINE AND INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES INC. v. HE DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL M.V. \'TRIDENT DAWN\' (QATAR FLAG)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ171/1991

The owner validly exercised its contractual right to withdraw the vessels on 29 May 1991 such that the demise charterparties terminated immediately upon that assertion; physical redelivery was not required for termination; consequently, at the time the writs were issued the charterers were no longer demise charterers and the intervener was entitled to have service of the writs set aside under the statutory framework.
9 Nov 1988

THE OWNERS OF CARGO LATELY LADEN ON BOARD THE VESSEL "K.H.ENTREPRISE" v. THE OWNES OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "PIONEER CONTAINER"

Citation

THE OWNERS OF CARGO LATELY LADEN ON BOARD THE VESSEL "K.H.ENTREPRISE" v. THE OWNES OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "PIONEER CONTAINER"
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ36/1988

Section 21(8) did not deprive the court of jurisdiction because the prior proceedings were against a different ship/owner and s.21(8) must be read with s.21(4); the earlier arrest did not constitute a bar to the present action. The conduct did not amount to vexatious litigation and the nondisclosure on the ex parte application, though insufficiently detailed, did not justify setting aside the arrest given the plaintiffs' good faith.
4 Mar 1987

SIN HUA ENTERPRISE CO LTD v. THE OWNERS OF THE MOTOR SHIP "HARIMA"

Citation

SIN HUA ENTERPRISE CO LTD v. THE OWNERS OF THE MOTOR SHIP "HARIMA"
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV121/1986

Non-disclosure of the possible back-dating and alleged illegality of the bill of lading, absent conclusive evidence and given the procedural compliance with O.75 and the existence of jurisdiction under s.21, was not material to the court's discretionary decision to issue or maintain the warrant of arrest; accordingly the judge correctly refused to discharge the warrant and the appeal was dismissed.
13 Oct 1982

OWNERS OF CARGO LATELY LADEN ON BOARD THE SHIP "RIAU" v. THE OWNERS OF "DJATIANOM" AND OTHERS

Citation

OWNERS OF CARGO LATELY LADEN ON BOARD THE SHIP "RIAU" v. THE OWNERS OF "DJATIANOM" AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ318/1981

The court held that 'charterer' in s.3(4) is not limited to demise charterer and that 'any other ship' in s.3(4)(b) includes any ship beneficially owned by the person liable in personam at the time the action is brought; accordingly Djatisari was properly liable to arrest and the defendants' motion to set aside the writ failed.
12 Aug 1981

ARCOM SHIPPING MANAGEMENT LTD v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "TURGUT GUNERI" (TURKISH FLAG)

Citation

ARCOM SHIPPING MANAGEMENT LTD v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "TURGUT GUNERI" (TURKISH FLAG)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ202/1981

Although the primary affidavit was defective for failing to state the grounds for the deponent's belief regarding liability in personam under Order 75 r.5(8)(c), the court held that because material before the court ultimately established the jurisdictional substratum and because warrants of arrest should not be lightly set aside, it was appropriate to exercise the discretion under Order 75 r.5(4) to allow the warrant to remain in force; accordingly the defendants' application to set aside the arrest was refused and the plaintiffs' amendment application was allowed.