Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Unseaworthiness

Legal area

Court

22 Apr 2002

HKSAR v. TAM KAM MUN

Citation

HKSAR v. TAM KAM MUN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC327/2001

The Court held the applicant was analogous to a crew member so the appropriate starting point was four years; the vessel's unseaworthiness could not be attributed to him and therefore should not aggravate sentence; the Newton hearing was unnecessary so his guilty plea discount should not be reduced; however his recent similar conviction justified a one-year uplift, producing a sentence of three years and four months.
9 Oct 1997

THE OWNERS AND/OR THOSE ENTITLED TO SUE IN RESPECT OF A CARGO OR VESSEL "GOODEAST" v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "GOODEAST"

Citation

THE OWNERS AND/OR THOSE ENTITLED TO SUE IN RESPECT OF A CARGO OR VESSEL "GOODEAST" v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "GOODEAST"
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ268/1997

The court accepted the new material (original bills of lading and the Wild affidavit) as establishing at least a good arguable case on the bills of lading and unseaworthiness issues, and held that under Order 75 r.28 inspection was necessary or desirable to obtain full information and evidence; given the vessel was immobilised awaiting sale the balance of convenience favored permitting the plaintiffs' fire expert to inspect, while immediate production of the listed documents was not necessary.
3 Oct 1997

THE OWNERS AND/OR THOSE ENTITLED TO SUE IN RESPECT OF A CARGO LATELY LADEN ON BOARD THE SHIP OR VESSEL "GOODEAST" v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "GOODEAST"

Citation

THE OWNERS AND/OR THOSE ENTITLED TO SUE IN RESPECT OF A CARGO LATELY LADEN ON BOARD THE SHIP OR VESSEL "GOODEAST" v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "GOODEAST"
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ268/1997

The application for ship inspection was dismissed because the evidence showed no material damage or machinery defect, prior inspections found nothing, the application was speculative/a fishing expedition, the Plaintiffs lacked a good arguable case on the Bill of Lading (including absence of the original endorsed Bill of Lading), and the Defendants' undertaking to preserve relevant documents was sufficient pending any further discovery.
9 May 1997

THE YIN HE (OWNERS OF CARGO) v. THE YIN HE (OWNERS OF SHIP) and Others

Citation

THE YIN HE (OWNERS OF CARGO) v. THE YIN HE (OWNERS OF SHIP) and Others
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ355/1991

The court held that the Hague-Visby fire exception applied and the ship owners were entitled to judgment against the shippers for damage and diversion costs because the fire was caused by the shippers' gross negligence in stuffing undeclared dangerous goods; the smoke detector was capable of operating but was not continuously switched on and earlier CO2 injection would not have materially altered the outcome because the fire was essentially self-contained within the container.
27 Nov 1996

GATMORE ENTERPRISES S.A. and Another v. THE PEOPLE\'S INSURANCE COMPANY OF CHINA

Citation

GATMORE ENTERPRISES S.A. and Another v. THE PEOPLE\'S INSURANCE COMPANY OF CHINA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL204/1993

The court found the Defendants had established the criteria of Order 24 r7 for the requested classes of documents and that Mr. Ma's affidavits were inadequate and showed insufficient inquiry; therefore the Plaintiffs must provide discovery via their proper officer, Mr. Wong Hon, within 21 days and the Defendants were awarded costs of the application.
23 Dec 1994

TAITEXMA ENTERPRISE CORPORATION v. TILLEMONT SHIPPING CORPORATION S.A. and Another

Citation

TAITEXMA ENTERPRISE CORPORATION v. TILLEMONT SHIPPING CORPORATION S.A. and Another
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV70/1994

At interlocutory stage the Court of Appeal held plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a good arguable case of unseaworthiness attributable to lack of due diligence by owners: defendants adduced cogent evidence of proper crew selection, qualifications, up-to-date charts and instructions and reasonable efforts to protect the vessel and cargo; loss was consistent with an error of navigation/peril of the sea, so Mareva injunction must be discharged.
17 Sept 1992

R. v. CHAN MUK-SHING

Citation

R. v. CHAN MUK-SHING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC271/1992

Appellate court held that the appropriate sentence is six years' imprisonment: adopting a five year starting point, add one year for concealment in compartments (not 1.5 years as below), add one year for technical unseaworthiness, and allow a more generous reduction for the guilty plea, reducing the original seven year sentence to six years.
19 Nov 1991

THE QUEEN v. NG KIT YUEN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. NG KIT YUEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC118/1991

Where illegal immigrants are concealed in a compartment from which escape would be difficult and/or the vessel is unseaworthy creating a grave risk to life, those circumstances are distinct aggravating factors that increase the gravity of the offence; the court endorsed a baseline of five years (per Lam Kon-man) and held that two years may be added for each aggravating factor (yielding starting points such as seven years for one factor and nine years for both); the trial judge's starting point was too low but the appeal against sentence was dismissed and the six-year sentence was upheld.