Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Wrongful arrest

Legal area

Court

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.
26 Aug 2011

BIRNAM LTD v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “HONG MING”

Citation

BIRNAM LTD v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “HONG MING”
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ105/2011

The warrant of arrest was set aside because the original MOA was validly terminated for failure to pay the stipulated deposit, no proprietary or possessory interest in the vessel arose from the partial deposit, the claim did not fall within HCO s.12A(2) or the 1952 Arrest Convention, and material non-disclosure together with a likely misuse of the arrest process justified setting aside the arrest and ordering an inquiry into damages.
10 Aug 2005

CHOY BING WING v. THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUDICIARY OF HKSAR, CHINA AND OTHERS

Citation

CHOY BING WING v. THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUDICIARY OF HKSAR, CHINA AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA125/2005

The claim was struck out because the magistrate acted within statutory powers to issue a bench warrant under s99, the action against the magistrate is barred or requires an express allegation of malice under s125 which was absent, Article 85 provides judicial immunity, s60 protects the arresting officer acting under a produced warrant, and the Commissioner is not vicariously liable and the Crown Proceedings framework was not followed; cumulatively the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was an abuse of process.
22 Feb 1994

VICTORY STAR SHIPPING COMPANY S.A. v. THE OWNERS AND ALL THOSE INTERESTED IN THE SHIP \'AMIGO\' AND WORLD HAPPY SHIPPING LIMITED

Citation

VICTORY STAR SHIPPING COMPANY S.A. v. THE OWNERS AND ALL THOSE INTERESTED IN THE SHIP \'AMIGO\' AND WORLD HAPPY SHIPPING LIMITED
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ115/1991

Although the plaintiff's conduct involved material non-disclosure and inept pleadings, on the facts the conduct did not amount to mala fides or crassa negligentia and the continuation of the arrest was not unduly wrongful; therefore the defendant's application for assessment of damages is dismissed.
19 Aug 1980

CHAN SZE-SHING v. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAN SZE-SHING v. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV6/1980

The arrest was unlawful because the material available established at most a mere possibility that the appellant had received bribe money, which falls short of the reasonable suspicion required to justify an arrest without warrant; accordingly the appellant was entitled to judgment and damages.
12 Dec 1979

CHAN SZE SHING v. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAN SZE SHING v. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2422/1978

The arrest was lawful because the decision-maker had reasonable grounds to suspect the plaintiff of involvement in receipt of a bribe, those grounds rested on the informant sergeant's information and Ma Sui Ming's statement (and retraction), and the investigator had made all presently practicable enquiries; therefore the defence of justification succeeded and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.