Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Arrest of vessel

Legal area

Court

5 Jul 2024

EMS-TECH INC. v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “MIRNA” AND THE OTHER SHIPS OR VESSELS NAMED IN SCHEDULE “A” ANNEXED HERETO

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1793
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ3/2024

The application for sale pendente lite was granted because service was proper, the Defendant did not appear, the Plaintiff as arresting party has a reasonably arguable claim with an estimated entitlement to security (USD 3.28m) and no security was provided, the vessel is a wasting asset incurring substantial continuing costs, is old and unfit to sail, and there are no other interested parties, making immediate sale desirable.
13 Dec 2012

CENTEL SHIPPING CO LTD v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “KING COAL” OR AS MAY BE DESCRIBING THE PROPERTY AGAINST WHICH THE ACTION IS BROUGHT

Citation

CENTEL SHIPPING CO LTD v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “KING COAL” OR AS MAY BE DESCRIBING THE PROPERTY AGAINST WHICH THE ACTION IS BROUGHT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ171/2012

The court held that s12A(2)(n) must be given its plain meaning: it confines admiralty jurisdiction for wages claims to claims brought by the Master or a member of the crew, and an assignee of crew wages does not fall within that provision; accordingly there was no admiralty jurisdiction, the writ (and arrest) must be set aside and the proposed amendment to add crew members was refused; alternatively, material non-disclosure to the ex parte judge would also have justified setting aside the arrest.
13 Jan 2012

COSMOTRADE EXPORTS S.A. v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “JIMRISE”

Citation

COSMOTRADE EXPORTS S.A. v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “JIMRISE”
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ180/2011

On the balance of probabilities the evidence established that Jimrise was the beneficial owner and Jimei was the commercial operator/time charterer, not a demise charterer at the time of arrest; Cosmotrade failed to satisfy s.12B(4) of the High Court Ordinance and therefore there was no in rem jurisdiction to arrest the vessel; there was no evidence of malicious negligence to justify an inquiry into damages.
24 Apr 2009

"ZHU SHENG 2" v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE VESSEL "ZHU SHENG 2"

Citation

"ZHU SHENG 2" v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE VESSEL "ZHU SHENG 2"
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ68/2007

The ex parte extension was set aside because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate they took all reasonable steps to serve the writ during its initial 12 month period, relied on an unjustified assumption that the vessel was absent from Hong Kong despite registration and presence, and their affidavit evidence omitted material particulars such that the extension order was improperly obtained.
25 Jul 2008

INTRALINE RESOURCES SDN BHD v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "HUA TIAN LONG"

Citation

INTRALINE RESOURCES SDN BHD v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "HUA TIAN LONG"
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV131/2008

The Court refused leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal because the questions sought a change to established Admiralty law and practice and were not matters this court should certify as of general or public importance; the Court also varied the order as to costs to 'no order as to costs', depriving the plaintiffs of their costs because of their adducing new evidence and a clarified case on appeal.
14 May 2008

INTRALINE RESOURCES SDN BHD v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "HUA TIAN LONG"

Citation

INTRALINE RESOURCES SDN BHD v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "HUA TIAN LONG"
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ59/2008

The judge exercised discretion to fix security at a level sufficient to cover the plaintiff's reasonably arguable best case while guarding against oppressive demands: the affidavit leading to arrest was held sufficient, liability issues could not be resolved at interlocutory stage, speculative heads were rejected, and the court apportioned and rounded down recoverable heads to arrive at security of US$65,000,000.
9 May 2005

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "ORIENTAL LILY\' AND THE 12 SHIPS OR VESSELS LISTED IN SCHEDULE HERETO

Citation

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "ORIENTAL LILY\' AND THE 12 SHIPS OR VESSELS LISTED IN SCHEDULE HERETO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ91/2004

The writ renewal was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the court that there had been no reasonable opportunity to effect service or arrest during the original currency; evidence showed vessel visits to Hong Kong sufficient for service and the plaintiffs did not take the reasonable steps required under The Berny and The Chong Bong tests.
13 May 2003

RE THE TRANSWARD NO. 27

Citation

RE THE TRANSWARD NO. 27
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ94/2002

The court exercised its discretion to order security for costs because the plaintiffs are foreign with no demonstrated basis to refuse security; the plaintiffs' claim of an overwhelmingly strong case was insufficient to displace the general rule; the defendants' skeleton bill justified a substantial portion of the sum sought, and the court fixed security at HK$150,000 to be furnished within 21 days and stayed the action pending compliance.
11 Dec 2001

THE TAI YANG HE

Citation

THE TAI YANG HE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ199/2000

The court granted default judgment in HCAJ199/2000, ordered specified sums paid out from the funds in court to satisfy the second-action judgment, assessed costs, directed payment of the first-action judgment and assessed costs, and authorised payment of the remaining balance to the plaintiffs' solicitors as part payment of costs of the failed applications without waiting for full taxation; the existence of a notice of appeal did not by itself justify withholding payment absent a stay application.
11 Dec 2001

THE TAI YANG HE

Citation

THE TAI YANG HE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ322/1998

Default judgment was properly entered for the plaintiff in the second action and the court may order payment out of funds on deposit to satisfy competing judgments and costs; a pending notice of appeal does not prevent payment out absent a stay application, and the court may apply remaining funds as part payment of costs of failed applications before final taxation.