Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Limitation fund

Legal area

Court

18 Feb 2022

PUSAN NEWPORT CO., LTD v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIPS OR VESSELS “MILANO BRIDGE” AND “CMA CGM MUSCA” AND “CMA CGM HYDRA”

Citation

[2022] HKCA 157
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP222/2021

The Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and upheld the stay to South Korea because, although the plaintiff would lose the higher Hong Kong tonnage limitation, on balance substantial justice would still be done in South Korea given the overwhelming connections of the dispute to Korea; the judge erred in treating the pursuit of a higher lawful limitation as per se improper forum shopping and the discretion was exercised afresh to find the balance favoured a stay.
23 Sept 2021

THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “KEN BREEZE” (IMO 9636383) OF THE PORT OF PANAMA v. THE OWNERS OF SHIPS OR VESSELS “PACIFIC GRACE” (IMO 9154828) OF THE PORT OF PANAMA AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2832
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ6/2021

Defendants obtained the relief sought (stays) and, applying RHC O 62 r 3(2A) and r 5, the court found no convincing reason to depart from the default position that costs follow the event; plaintiffs' complaints about defendants' timing of offers were not sufficiently persuasive given reciprocal negotiations and absence of clear unfairness, so costs of the summonses, actions generally and the hearing were ordered to the defendants.
23 Sept 2021

THE OWNERS AND/OR THOSE ENTITLED TO SUE IN RESPECT OF A CARGO LATELY LADEN ON BOARD THE SHIP OR VESSEL “KEN BREEZE” (IMO 9636383) v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “PACIFIC GRACE” (IMO 9154828)

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2832
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ15/2021

Defendants, having obtained the stays in favour of the Haikou Maritime Court and absent any convincing reason to depart from the default costs rule, are entitled to costs of the stay summonses and the actions generally; the court considered parties' conduct and offers and found no basis to apportion costs otherwise.
20 Sept 2019

BRIGHT SHIPPING LTD v. CHANGHONG GROUP (HK) LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1062
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV102/2019

The Court dismissed the appeal: the judge did not err in principle or law in concluding Hong Kong remains an appropriate forum and Changhong failed to show the SMC is clearly and distinctly more appropriate; the collision being in the PRC EEZ and the constitution of limitation funds in Shanghai did not, on the facts and given the stage of related SMC proceedings, outweigh factors favoring Hong Kong; lis alibi pendens and related proceedings were not sufficiently developed or prejudicial to justify a stay.
9 May 2017

ELENI MARITIME LTD v. HEUNG A SHIPPING CO., LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

ELENI MARITIME LTD v. HEUNG A SHIPPING CO., LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ189/2013

Section 7(1) applies to actions to enforce claims or liens against the vessel or its owners and does not operate to bar actions against a constituted limitation fund; the deadline in a limitation decree is an administrative procedural deadline which the court may extend; protective writs issued within the statutory period preserve a claimant's right against the owner and justify extension of the decree deadline where good reasons exist and there is no prejudice.
26 Jun 2015

ELENI MARITIME LTD v. HEUNG-A SHIPPING CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

ELENI MARITIME LTD v. HEUNG-A SHIPPING CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ189/2013

The court ordered that the Limitation Issue (whether Wreck Removal Claims under Article 2(1)(d) are subject to limitation) is to be determined in the present limitation action so that all claimants against the fund are bound, but declined to order a separate preliminary trial on assumed facts; the summons was otherwise dismissed and parties given liberty to apply on costs if no agreement within 14 days.
1 Dec 2008

THE OWNERS OF AND/OR OTHER PERSONS ENTITLED TO SUE IN RESPECT OF THE CARGO LATELY LADEN ON BOARD THE SHIP OR VESSEL "HUI RONG" (LR NO. 7525748) v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "PENG YAN" (LR NO. 8020563) AND THE OWNERS OF THE SHIPS OR VESSELS SET OUT IN THE SCHEDULE A ANNEXED HERETO

Citation

THE OWNERS OF AND/OR OTHER PERSONS ENTITLED TO SUE IN RESPECT OF THE CARGO LATELY LADEN ON BOARD THE SHIP OR VESSEL "HUI RONG" (LR NO. 7525748) v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "PENG YAN" (LR NO. 8020563) AND THE OWNERS OF THE SHIPS OR VESSELS SET OUT IN THE SCHEDULE A ANNEXED HERETO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV269/2008

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals: defendants failed to show the Ningbo Maritime Court was clearly or distinctly a more appropriate forum than Hong Kong. Key reasons were (1) admiralty jurisdiction founded by arrest and Letters of Undertaking made the burden on defendants heavy; (2) parallel limitation proceedings in Ningbo and the existence of a limitation fund did not by themselves justify a stay, particularly while the fund and appeals were not finally resolved; and (3) the Letters of Undertaking did not expressly reserve tonnage limitation such that plaintiffs in Hong Kong might h…

Hong Kong Case Law

PUSAN NEWPORT CO., LTD v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIPS OR VESSELS “MILANO BRIDGE” AND “CMA CGM MUSCA” AND “CMA CGM HYDRA”

THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “KEN BREEZE” (IMO 9636383) OF THE PORT OF PANAMA v. THE OWNERS OF SHIPS OR VESSELS “PACIFIC GRACE” (IMO 9154828) OF THE PORT OF PANAMA AND ANOTHER

THE OWNERS AND/OR THOSE ENTITLED TO SUE IN RESPECT OF A CARGO LATELY LADEN ON BOARD THE SHIP OR VESSEL “KEN BREEZE” (IMO 9636383) v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “PACIFIC GRACE” (IMO 9154828)

BRIGHT SHIPPING LTD v. CHANGHONG GROUP (HK) LTD

ELENI MARITIME LTD v. HEUNG A SHIPPING CO., LTD. AND OTHERS

ELENI MARITIME LTD v. HEUNG-A SHIPPING CO LTD AND OTHERS