Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Charterparty

Legal area

Court

12 Mar 2020

DAYANG (HK) MARINE SHIPPING CO., LTD v. ASIA MASTER LOGISTICS LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 311
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW14/2019

Respondent's counterclaim is not supported by precise and substantial evidence and the respondent has not properly commenced arbitration or shown that its cross-claim will extinguish the petitioning debt; accordingly the Court, exercising its discretion and applying established tests, finds the debt is not disputed in good faith on substantial grounds and makes a winding-up order against the respondent company.
4 Mar 2020

OCBC WING HANG BANK LTD v. KAI SEN SHIPPING CO LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 375
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ5/2019

The arbitration clause in the charterparty was not incorporated into the bills of lading: English law governs the arbitration agreement and, under that law, Thomas v Portsea requires express words for incorporation of collateral arbitration clauses into bills of lading; further OCBC's commencement of arbitration was a reservation to preserve limitation rights and did not amount to submission. Accordingly the stay was refused and the Hong Kong court retains jurisdiction.
5 Jun 2008

UGLAND SHIPPING A/S AND ANOTHER v. INTERMARE TRANSPORT GMBH AND OTHERS

Citation

UGLAND SHIPPING A/S AND ANOTHER v. INTERMARE TRANSPORT GMBH AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV393/2007

The Court upheld the High Court's construction of the 15 June 2006 order: all reasonable expenses of sale, including hire and costs incurred before or after that order in moving and selling deteriorating cargo, are recoverable from the fund paid into court; whether the applicable hire was the head charter rate or the sub‑charter rate, the fund would be consumed and the judge correctly ordered release of the funds to the 1st defendant's solicitors and allocated costs as he did; the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed.
13 Feb 2006

ORIENTAL OVERSEAS MARITIME SERVICES LTD v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "FAN YUN 123 (番運123)"

Citation

ORIENTAL OVERSEAS MARITIME SERVICES LTD v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "FAN YUN 123 (番運123)"
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ265/2005

Given the urgency (vessel under arrest), absence of a request for cross-examination and the late stage at hearing, the court must determine the in rem jurisdictional issue on the affidavits before it rather than ordering a full trial with pleadings and live evidence; the court proceeded to decide the matter on the material filed.
8 Dec 2004

TRANSOCEAN GRABBULK POOL PTE LTD v. LUCKY ACCORD CO LTD

Citation

TRANSOCEAN GRABBULK POOL PTE LTD v. LUCKY ACCORD CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ716/2004

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the Defendant was the contracting hirer; documentary and witness evidence established Lucky Accord Shipping Co. Ltd. as the hirer and agency was not pleaded, therefore the Defendant is not liable and the Plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
27 Mar 1997

SHANGHAI HAIXING SHIPPING CO. LTD. v. HARVEST FILL SHIPPING LTD.

Citation

SHANGHAI HAIXING SHIPPING CO. LTD. v. HARVEST FILL SHIPPING LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL351/1996

On the uncontested affidavit evidence and established maritime law that freight is not subject to set-off, the Defendant disclosed no real defence; therefore summary judgment was entered for the Plaintiff for the principal sum claimed, interest and costs, the Mareva injunction was continued, and the Defendant's solicitors were permitted to cease acting.
28 Jan 1994

Greenwood Ltd. v. Pearl River Container Transportation Ltd. AND ANOTHER

Citation

Greenwood Ltd. v. Pearl River Container Transportation Ltd. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL84/1993

The court dismissed the 1st Defendant's application for a stay under O.12 r.8 because the defendant failed to prove that the PRC was clearly or distinctly a more appropriate forum than Hong Kong; the 1st Defendant had been properly served in Hong Kong, carried on business here and inconvenience to witnesses was insufficient to displace Hong Kong as the appropriate forum.
14 Nov 1988

KINGSTAR SHIPPING LTD. v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP "ROLITA" (PANAMANIAN FLAG) AND ANOTHER

Citation

KINGSTAR SHIPPING LTD. v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP "ROLITA" (PANAMANIAN FLAG) AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV104/1988

On a challenge to in rem jurisdiction the court may assume the facts advanced by the claimant and, if on the balance of probabilities those facts establish that the relevant person would be liable in personam and was the beneficial owner/charterer/in control when the cause of action arose, the statutory conditions for in rem jurisdiction under ss.20(2)(h) and 21(4) are satisfied. Applying that test the Court of Appeal found jurisdiction existed and dismissed the appeal.
17 Feb 1987

SUMMA INTERNATIONAL LTD v. ACCIDENTAL SHIPPING CO LTD

Citation

SUMMA INTERNATIONAL LTD v. ACCIDENTAL SHIPPING CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6492/1986

Defendant, as broker, breached its duty to apply requisite skill in fixing vessels into Chalna during monsoon conditions; the consequent need to transship into barges and resulting expenses were foreseeable and directly caused by that breach; plaintiff is entitled to specific damages of US$264,100.78 plus interest and costs.
10 Jan 1986

TRANSATLANTIC SCHIFFAHRTSKONTOR GMBH v. VINCOR SHIPPING CO. LTD.

Citation

TRANSATLANTIC SCHIFFAHRTSKONTOR GMBH v. VINCOR SHIPPING CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL103/1985

The court found the defendant had a reasonably arguable case that Clause 18 did not by clear words exclude the common law/equitable right of set-off and that despatch claims were liquidated and therefore capable of set-off against freight; accordingly summary judgment could not be granted and the action was stayed in favour of arbitration under the charterparty and s.6A Cap.341.