DHL Project & Chartering Ltd v MV "Shandong Hai Chang" (A10/2020) [2022] ZAKZDHC 24 (30 May 2022)

DHL Project & Chartering Ltd v MV "Shandong Hai Chang" (A10/2020) [2022] ZAKZDHC 24 (30 May 2022)

The court found that the plaintiff bore the onus of proving that, at the time its claim arose, SASAC controlled both Tonkolili and Shandong Haiyang for the purposes of association under the Act. The evidence established that, following reforms in the People's Republic of China, SASAC delegated its capital contributor functions to SIS, which became an SOE holding company exercising control over its subsidiary, Tonkolili. The relevant State Council and SASAC documents, as well as the PRC Law on SOEs, confirmed that the reform was implemented prior to the period when the plaintiff's claim arose. Consequently, SIS, not SASAC, controlled the fate and destiny of Tonkolili. The plaintiff failed...

Citation
[2022] ZAKZDHC 24
Parties
Plaintiff: DHL Project & Chartering Ltd; Defendant: MV "Shandong Hai Chang"
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 May 2022
Case Number
A10/2020
Procedural Posture
Admiralty Action in Rem / Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs, including the qualifying fees of the expert witness, Mr Peng.
Judges
D Pillay
Legal Topics
Associated Ship Arrest, Control of State Owned Enterprises, Foreign Law Evidence, Enforcement of Arbitration Award
Admiralty and Maritime Associated Ship Arrest Control of State Owned Enterprises Foreign Law Evidence Enforcement of Arbitration Award

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DHL Project & Chartering Ltd

Plaintiff

MV "Shandong Hai Chang"

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Admiralty Action in Rem / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant vessel was an associated ship of mv Zhong Teng Hai under the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act 105 of 1983.
  2. 2 Whether SASAC controlled both Tonkolili and Shandong Haiyang at the relevant times for the purposes of association.
  3. 3 Whether the reforms in the People's Republic of China resulted in SIS, rather than SASAC, controlling Tonkolili.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff bore the onus of proving that, at the time its claim arose, SASAC controlled both Tonkolili and Shandong Haiyang for the purposes of association under the Act. The evidence established that, following reforms in the People's Republic of China, SASAC delegated its capital contributor functions to SIS, which became an SOE holding company exercising control over its subsidiary, Tonkolili. The relevant State Council and SASAC documents, as well as the PRC Law on SOEs, confirmed that the reform was implemented prior to the period when the plaintiff's claim arose. Consequently, SIS, not SASAC, controlled the fate and destiny of Tonkolili. The plaintiff failed...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs, including the qualifying fees of the expert witness, Mr Peng.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.
  • Costs to include the qualifying fees of the expert witness, Mr Peng.