Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Limitation of liability

Legal area

Court

16 Feb 2023

PERUSAHAAN PERSEROAN (PERSERO) PT PERTAMINA v. TREVASKIS LIMITED; and all other persons claiming or being entitled to claim damages arising from a collision between “STAR CENTURION” and “ANTEA”, which occurred on or about 13 January 2019 off Horsburgh Light House, South China Sea

Citation

[2023] HKCFA 5
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV633/2022

The Court held that the narrow legal question whether disapplication or suspension of head (d) under Article 18 prevents reliance on head (a) is a question of great general or public importance and is reasonably arguable, and therefore granted leave to appeal on that question while refusing the stay.
9 Nov 2022

PERUSAHAAN PERSEROAN (PERSERO) PT PERTAMINA v. TREVASKIS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1672
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV102/2021

The CA upheld the Decision that on ordinary construction the wreck removal claim falls within Article 2(1)(d) of the 1976 Convention and, because a reservation under Article 18(1) excluded application of Article 2(1)(d), the claim was excluded from the limitation regime; overlap with other heads (eg (a)) did not permit reliance on those heads by operation of generalia specialibus non derogant; the plaintiff's contrary arguments were not reasonably arguable and leave to appeal was refused; stay refused; costs awarded.
22 Jul 2022

PERUSAHAAN PERSEROAN (PERSERO) PT PERTAMINA v. TREVASKIS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1089
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV102/2021

The Court held that wreck removal claims fall within Article 2(1)(d) of the 1976 Convention and, because Hong Kong (via the reservation made under Article 18(1) and as effected by the domestic suspension in section 15 of Cap 434) excluded/ suspended Article 2(1)(d), such wreck removal claims are excluded from the limitation regime even if linguistically they might overlap with Articles 2(1)(a) or (c); the specific provision (d) prevails over the general heads by application of generalia specialibus non derogant; plaintiff's appeal dismissed.
7 Apr 2022

BRIGHT SHIPPING LTD v. CHANGHONG GROUP (HK) LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 920
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ3/2018

Defendant's renewed application to re-litigate and/or for an extension of time is dismissed because there is no significant change of circumstances warranting reopening the stay issue after submission to jurisdiction; lis alibi pendens and plaintiff's subsequent participation in SMC did not alter the Spiliada Stage 1 analysis nor justify a stay; on the merits the defendant failed to show SMC is clearly or distinctly more appropriate and Hong Kong's higher limitation regime represents a legitimate juridical advantage; accordingly the summons is dismissed and no extension of time or stay is gra…
22 Feb 2021

PERUSAHAAN PERSEROAN (PERSERO) PT PERTAMINA v. TREVASKIS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 396
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ98/2019

Wreck removal claims fall within Article 2(1)(d) exclusively; section 15(3) of Cap 434 suspends the operation of Article 2(1)(d) in Hong Kong until a Chief Executive order under s15(1) is made; no order was made, therefore the declared category of wreck removal claims is not subject to limitation under the Ordinance and the declaration sought was granted.
16 Jul 2020

CHANGHONG GROUP (HK) LIMITED v. BRIGHT SHIPPING LIMITED

Citation

[2020] HKCFA 24
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV34/2020

The application for leave was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish at Spiliada Stage 1 that the Shanghai Maritime Court is clearly and distinctly more appropriate than Hong Kong; lis alibi pendens and the existence of limitation proceedings are relevant factors but do not alone displace the forum; EEZ location is not dispositive; no arguable question of law of sufficient public importance was established to justify leave and the action in Hong Kong had advanced to trial readiness.
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.
28 Jun 2019

INVEST GAIN LTD v. NOVEL GOOD LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1633
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA939/2013

Clause 8.05 was construed as permitting a bald notice of a claim but only as to claims that had actually come to the Purchaser's knowledge or been revealed at the time the notice was given; the MBJSM letter (21 June 2011) thereby constituted effective notice for the Xian Project and several warranty claims (Issues 2,3,4,7 and 9) but not for claims that were only discovered after that date (Issues 1,5,6,8 were time‑barred or premature); findings of fact established breaches by the Vendor of Clause 6.04 (Yingtong), accounting warranties (Jinma, BJ Xinsong), non‑disclosure of the Zheng Litigatio…
29 Jan 2019

HANWHA TOTAL PETROCHEMICAL CO., LTD. AND ANOTHER v. CHANGHONG GROUP (HK) LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 263
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ6/2018

The application for a stay was dismissed because there were no sufficiently parallel proceedings between the same parties in Shanghai to engage lis alibi pendens; the mis-declaration claim in Shanghai is not sufficiently connected and could not operate as a counterclaim in Hong Kong due to the double actionability rule; the 2nd plaintiff's registration in limitation proceedings was a protective measure and does not justify a stay; plaintiffs' choice to litigate in Hong Kong was legitimate.
24 Aug 2018

DELTATRE S.P.A. v. HONG KONG SPORTS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT LTD (formerly known as LETV SPORTS CULTURE DEVELOP (HONGKONG) CO., LTD)

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1942
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1303/2017

The court followed the Euromark line: lack of a credible defence alone is not a 'strong cause' to override an exclusive jurisdiction clause; plaintiff failed to demonstrate any other strong or exceptional reason to displace the parties' agreed forum; accordingly the proceedings in Hong Kong were stayed in favour of the courts in Torino and the plaintiff's summary judgment/interim payment applications were dismissed.