Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

In rem jurisdiction

Legal area

Court

18 Jun 2015

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 Appeal
Case number

CACV214/2014

On construction and characterisation the Agreement, read as a whole, created an advance repayable out of sale proceeds such that AMIL did not acquire a part beneficial ownership in the vessel; absent fraud or other compelling circumstances registration is virtually conclusive of beneficial ownership for s.12B(4)(ii); appeals dismissed.
18 Jun 2015

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 Appeal
Case number

CACV215/2014

The contract, read as a whole and having regard to its substance and parties' conduct, created a loan repayable out of sale proceeds rather than a part beneficial ownership; therefore MMG remained beneficial owner of all shares for the purposes of section 12B(4)(ii) and the in rem arrests and sale were lawful; AMIL's appeals fail.
13 Mar 2015

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 sums of US$3,593,902 and US$769,593 are debts and there was no appropriation of those sums to in rem bunker claims; to found Admiralty in rem jurisdiction appropriation must have occurred at the time of the writ (commencement of action); the plaintiff failed to establish a matter of great general or public importance and failed to rely on the July 2013 claim to defeat the jurisdictional challenge, therefore leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is refused.
21 Jul 2014

HANDYTANKERS KS v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL M/V “ALAS”, SUBSEQUENTLY RENAMED AS “KOMBOS” AND THOSE OTHER VESSELS NAMED IN SCHEDULE “A” ANNEXED HERETO

Citation

HANDYTANKERS KS v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL M/V “ALAS”, SUBSEQUENTLY RENAMED AS “KOMBOS” AND THOSE OTHER VESSELS NAMED IN SCHEDULE “A” ANNEXED HERETO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ241/2009

The Court held that the plaintiff validly invoked the in rem jurisdiction because the pleaded cause of action is for breach of the charterparty and unpaid hire under section 12A(2)(h) and not an action to enforce the arbitral award; under the Rena K line of authority an unsatisfied arbitral award does not bar pursuit of an in rem claim or the arrest of a vessel as security for an anticipated in rem judgment; therefore the arrest was not an abuse of process and the defendants' summons to set aside the warrant of arrest was 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.
24 Jan 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 First Instance
Case number

HCAJ126/2013

The court held that the bulk of the claim (US$3,593,902 and US$769,593) related to maritime supplies/necessaries (notably bunkers and crew services) and therefore fell within s12A(2)(l) giving the court in rem jurisdiction; Asset Wonder's summons challenging jurisdiction was dismissed. The court also held that an owner's acknowledgement of service does not automatically preclude default judgment against other defendants, but because the intervener sought to oppose the default judgment and the court must be satisfied the claim is well founded, the plaintiff's application for default judgment w…
9 Dec 2013

OCEANIC GROUP PTE LTD AND ANOTHER v. The owners and/or demise charterers of the ship or vessel “ORIENTAL DRAGON”

Citation

OCEANIC GROUP PTE LTD AND ANOTHER v. The owners and/or demise charterers of the ship or vessel “ORIENTAL DRAGON”
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ162/2012

The court held that, on the evidence available at the ex parte stage, the plaintiffs' claims were substantially in rem under s12A(2)(l) and (o) HCO but certain items were not: insurance premiums were not in rem and payment in lieu of notice was not a maritime supply; the disbursements element of management fees and the basis for crew wage claims were insufficiently explained at ex parte stage but overall did not justify discharging the warrant or setting aside the writ; security in court should be reduced to reflect non in rem elements.
16 Oct 2013

ROY DUBONGCO AND OTHERS v. The owners and/or demise charterers of the ship or vessel “FEARLESS I” or as may be describing the property against which the action is brought

Citation

ROY DUBONGCO AND OTHERS v. The owners and/or demise charterers of the ship or vessel “FEARLESS I” or as may be describing the property against which the action is brought
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ197/2012

Centel's applications were dismissed: a party without a valid in rem claim who wrongfully arrests a vessel is not entitled to reimbursement of its arrest and maintenance costs from the sale proceeds in priority to other claimants (save for the Chief Bailiff), and material non‑disclosure at ex parte arrest applications further undermines any entitlement; policy requires wrongful arrestors to bear their costs to deter abusive arrests.
16 Oct 2013

GENEPER OLEDAN AND OTHERS 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

GENEPER OLEDAN AND OTHERS 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

HCAJ198/2012

Centel lacked a valid in rem claim and its warrants were tainted by material non-disclosure; as a wrongful arrestor it was not entitled to reimbursement or priority out of the sale proceeds except for sums due to the Chief Bailiff, therefore the applications for reimbursement were dismissed.