Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sale of vessel

Legal area

Court

16 Apr 2020

CREDIT SUISSE AG v. THE OWNER OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “BRIGHTOIL GALAXY”

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 613
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ13/2019

The court exercised its supervisory discretion to fix reasonable retention sums per vessel on a 'reasonably arguable best case' basis, ordered that the plaintiff's costs of the actions be recoverable on an indemnity basis but be taxed if not agreed, allowed the retention to include 'further legal costs and disbursements' incurred to protect mortgage rights (subject to identification), and reformed the draft orders to retain specified amounts in each action and to give effect to agreed priorities.
11 Oct 2017

HSBC BANK PLC v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “APELLIS”

Citation

HSBC BANK PLC v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “APELLIS”
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ63/2016

Where a defendant has failed to acknowledge service, O.65 r.9 and relevant authority (notably The Iran Nabuvat) permit the plaintiff to proceed to default judgment without separate service of the Notice of Motion; HSBC's supporting evidence established a well-founded claim under the secured loan and ship mortgage and judgment was properly entered for the amounts claimed with costs to HSBC.
30 Jan 2012

BANK OF CHINA LTD, MACAU BRANCH v. THE OWNER OF DEMISE CHARTERER OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “SHEN LONG”

Citation

BANK OF CHINA LTD, MACAU BRANCH v. THE OWNER OF DEMISE CHARTERER OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “SHEN LONG”
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ137/2011

Because the Motions were not disputed and the Admiralty Court practice permits advance requests for Chambers hearings to allow solicitors to address the Court without counsel where motions are likely undisputed and notice has been given, the court allowed the application and adjourned the Motions to Chambers (open to the public) to hear the sale applications.
30 Jan 2012

BANK OF CHINA LIMITED, MACAU BRANCH v. THE OWNER OF DEMISE CHARTERER OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “TIAN LONG”

Citation

BANK OF CHINA LIMITED, MACAU BRANCH v. THE OWNER OF DEMISE CHARTERER OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “TIAN LONG”
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ138/2011

Because the Motions were not disputed and the defendants' solicitors only sought to assist with the sale orders, the Court allowed the application for the hearings to be in Chambers (open to the public), adjourned the Motions to Chambers and heard the sale applications.
18 Jul 2008

GOLDEN METRO CHINA LTD v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL SKY LUCKY

Citation

GOLDEN METRO CHINA LTD v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL SKY LUCKY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV187/2008

The stay was refused because the judge's factual findings established that the three alleged conditions were either not agreed, uncertain or unenforceable, and there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal; consequently it was appropriate to allow release of the cash bail and to adjourn the application for security for costs until proper particulars were provided.
4 Jul 2008

GOLDEN METRO CHINA LTD v. TIAN REN CO LTD

Citation

GOLDEN METRO CHINA LTD v. TIAN REN CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ194/2006

The court held that there was no proved enforceable oral agreement imposing the three conditions; the Nomination Agreement novated the Head MOA but did not extinguish Tian Ren's obligation under the Sub-MOA to pay the US$1.5 million; the contemporaneous documents and commercial implausibility of the alleged conditions outweighed unreliable oral testimony, so Tian Ren was liable to pay US$1.5 million plus interest and costs.
4 Jul 2008

GOLDEN METRO CHINA LTD v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL SKY LUCKY

Citation

GOLDEN METRO CHINA LTD v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL SKY LUCKY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ191/2006

The court found no reliable evidence that the three oral conditions formed part of the bargain; the Nomination Agreement novated the Head MOA but did not extinguish Tian Ren's obligation under the Sub-MOA to pay the US$1.5 million; no valid variation supported by consideration existed; accordingly Tian Ren was liable to pay US$1.5 million plus stipulated interest and costs.
9 Dec 1999

THE KUZMA GNIDASH

Citation

THE KUZMA GNIDASH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ145/1999

The costs subject to assessment were limited to costs of arrest and of the sale and related applications; on gross sum assessment the court found substantial over‑servicing and, notwithstanding the complexity, fixed the gross sum at $135,000 as a reasonable amount.
21 Dec 1998

THE HALLA LIBERTY

Citation

THE HALLA LIBERTY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ46/1998

Leave to appeal was refused because the costs decision was an exercise of discretion based on the particular facts of the case, involved no general principle warranting appellate review, the application was made out of time and without notice to other interested parties, and relevant factual material had not been placed before the court.
12 Aug 1997

AKER INVEST AS v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP "CLAYMORE SEA"

Citation

AKER INVEST AS v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP "CLAYMORE SEA"
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ172/1997

The Court refused the plaintiff's request to order sale by public auction or private sale because there was no compelling affidavit evidence to justify departing from the Admiralty Court's well‑established practice of sale by public tender and because court appraisals indicated substantially higher values than the plaintiff's proposed price, so the July Order for public sale by tender was to stand.