The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 9/2/2010 holding a carrier entitled to rely on its bill of lading clause to lien the cargoes for the damages, costs, expenses, charges resulting from the shipper’s overloading the cargoes in the containers. [HCA 1579/2008]
This was a claim by the shipper under a bill of lading for damages in respect of the carriage of a number of reefer containers from Hong Kong to Haiphong, Vietnam. The shipper complained that the carrier refused to release the cargo upon arrival in Haiphong and one of the containers which was not shipped on the vessel in Hong Kong, but instead did so only against the payment of or security for certain charges and extra fees, which the shipper claimed should not have been raised.
On about 20/7/2008, the shipper entered into a contract with a Vietnamese company to ship a quantity of frozen meat from Hong Kong to Vietnam. The shipper engaged a freight forwarder as its shipping agent in respect of the frozen meat. Between 25 and 30/7/2008, the forwarder, acting on behalf of the shipper, made bookings with SYMS HK for the shipment of seven reefer containers from Hong Kong to Vietnam. Each of these bookings was effected by a document headed “Shipper Order”. SYMS HK then issued booking orders to confirm those bookings. The forwarder tendered the booking orders and, on about 1/8/2008, collected seven empty reefer containers from a terminal in Tsing Yi operated by CMCS into which the frozen meat was loaded for carriage. After loading, the reefer containers were sealed by the shipper and returned to the terminal, whereupon dock receipts were issued to the forwarder. Upon tender of the dock receipt and the submission of further information and payment of freight, a bill of lading was issued to the shipper in respect of the cargo of frozen meat. The further information in question included a description of the cargo and its weight, which information was provided by the forwarder. The bill of lading that was issued was numbered No. SYHJVHPV2830005 and dated 1/8/2008. The carrying vessel named in the bill of lading was the M/V PIRA BHUM. During the process of loading the cargo on board the vessel on 2/8/2008 at Tsing Yi, one of the reefer containers, namely container No. GESU 9211539, was being moved by a container lifting truck crane. In the course of being so moved, the lifting truck toppled over forwards. As a result of this both the lifting truck and the container sustained damage. An inspection of the damage and a survey was conducted on 2/8/2008. Since the container was damaged, the cargo contained in it had to be re-loaded into another reefer container. This new reefer container remained at the cargo terminal at Tsing Yi to await further instructions from the shipper. It was SYMS HK’s case that the cause of the accident was that the container was overweight. The other six reefer containers, having been duly loaded, were carried by the vessel to Haiphong, Vietnam, under a replacement bill of lading dated 2/8/2008 and also numbered No. SYHJVHPV2830005. Upon arrival of the vessel at Haiphong, these six containers were weighed by the carrier’s local agent. It was SYMS HK’s case that they were found to be overweight when weighed. Accordingly, the six containers were not released pending the payment of further charges in respect of their carriage.
The shipper commenced legal proceedings on 25/8/2008. By an inter partes summons dated 27/8/2008, the shipper applied for a mandatory injunction requiring SYMS HK to release the cargo held in Haiphong. On about 3/9/2008, upon the agreement of the consignee to pay an additional sum of US$34,050, the six reefer containers situated at Haiphong were released. On about 4/9/2008, upon the shipper’s agreement to pay HK$63,749 as security for fees and expenses incurred in respect of the handling of the damaged container, that damaged container was released to the shipper in Hong Kong. The shipper claimed that SYMS HK received the cargo of frozen meat as contractual carrier under the bill of lading and therefore as bailee of the cargo for reward. The shipper claimed that SYMS HK acted in breach of its contractual obligations and in breach of its duties as bailee for reward in refusing (until 4/9/2008) to release the six containers shipped to Haiphong. It also claimed that SYMS HK acted in breach of contract and in breach of its duties as bailee for reward in refusing to release the goods in the damaged container. The shipper claimed to recover the sums it and its consignee were required to pay in order to secure the release of the containers in Haiphong and the damaged container in Hong Kong.
For its part, SYMS HK denied that it was the contractual carrier under the bill of lading. Furthermore, SYMS HK claimed that the cargo in the damaged reefer container weighed 36,180 kgs, which was in excess of the permissible limit. It claimed that the carrier was entitled, pursuant to clause 23 of the bill of lading, to exercise a lien on the cargo in the damaged container in respect of the damage caused and other expenses and costs incurred. It was also SYMS HK’s case that the charges levied in Haiphong in respect of the six containers discharged from the vessel there were proper overweight surcharges and scale fees. It was the SYMS HK’s case that the initial refusal to release the cargo in Vietnam did not amount to a breach of contract or duty as bailee because it was justified under a contractual right of lien pursuant to clause 23 of the bill of lading.
The issues for determination were:-
Whether SYMS HK was the contractual carrier under the bill of lading or bailee for reward in respect of the cargo?
Whether, if SYMS HK was the contractual carrier or bailee of the cargo, it was entitled to exercise a lien over the cargo pursuant to clause 23 of the bill of lading?
Whether SYMS HK was liable to the shipper and, if so, for what damages?
The first issue: was SYMS HK the contractual carrier or bailee for reward?
The shipper accepted that SYMS HK was not named as carrier under the bill of lading. Instead, the shipper accepted that SYMS Shandong was named as the carrier. However, the shipper suggested that SYMS HK’s principal, SYMS Shandong, was only identified “at the very last moment when the Bill of Lading was issued”. The shipper contended that the previous communications including the shipper orders and booking confirmations were all between the shipper and SYMS HK so that SYMS HK was the proper party to the contract and was therefore in fact the carrier.
In the Judge’s judgment, the shipper’s case on this issue did not withstand analysis. There could be no doubt that SYMS HK was in fact an agent acting for and on behalf of SYMS Shandong as its principal. SYMS HK had entered into an agency agreement with SYMS Shandong dated as of 1/4/2008, whereunder SYMS Shandong appointed SYMS HK as its general agent for all its owned and/or chartered vessels including any slots or space charter agreement serving various countries in Southeast Asia and all other services involving the port of Hong Kong. It is trite law that when an agent makes a contract with a third party, purporting to act solely on behalf of a disclosed principle, whether identified or unidentified, he is not liable to the third party on that contract. It did not matter that the shipper might have been unaware that SYMS HK was acting as agent for SYMS Shandong. What was relevant was the state of knowledge of the forwarder, as agent for the shipper, since the forwarder was duly authorised to enter into a contract of carriage on behalf of the shipper in respect of the cargo. Prior to the shipper’s shipment, the forwarder had dealt with SYMS HK on between 10 and 20 transactions over a period of about two years. The evidence of the previous dealings between the forwarder and SYMS HK included documents relating to a previous shipment on board the vessel MV ALICE, which involved similar documents and procedures. This was not a matter of imputation of an agent’s knowledge to its principal. Rather, as Hoffmann LJ (as he then was) pointed out in El Ajou v. Dollar Land Holdings plc & another [1994] 2 All ER 685 at 702c-g, the agent’s knowledge affected the terms or performance of the contract which he concluded on behalf of his principal. The forwarder’s knowledge that SYMS HK was acting as an agent only for SYMS Shandong was the basis for treating the contract as one made between the shipper and SYMS Shandong and not with SYMS HK.
The Judge accepted and found as a matter of fact that, in concluding the contract on behalf of SYMS Shandong, SYMS HK had disclosed to the forwarder, as agent for the shipper, that SYMS HK was acting as agent solely on behalf on its principal, SYMS Shandong. In this regard, the evidence was, in the Judge’s opinion, very clear.
First, each of the shipper orders submitted by the forwarder to SYMS HK contained the following express provision: “Carriage of cargo is subject to the terms and conditions of the Carrier’s Bill of Lading and the applicable tariff”. The reference to the “Carrier” in the shipper orders could be contrasted with the reference in the same document to “the Company”: the latter clearly referred to SYMS HK and this, in the Judge’s view, at least put the forwarder on notice that the carrier under the bill of lading would be a different party. Secondly, and, in the Judge’s opinion, critically on this issue, the bill of lading issued in respect of the shipment clearly defined and identified SYMS Shandong as the carrier. This fact was common ground. Thirdly, the invoice issued by SYMS HK to the forwarder dated 2/8/2008 in respect of the shipment expressly stated: As agents only for SYMS Shandong. Whilst that document post-dated the conclusion of the contract of carriage, the forwarder had booked shipping space through SYMS HK previously on board the M/V ALICE and had received an invoice dated 14/6/2008 containing the same statement.
Looking at the evidence as a whole, it was plain, in the Judge’s opinion, that the contract was made by SYMS HK as agent only for SYMS Shandong. The Judge concluded on the first issue that SYMS HK was not the contractual carrier under the bill of lading or bailee for reward in respect of the cargo.
The second issue: if SYMS HK was the carrier of the goods, was it entitled to exercise a lien over them?
The Judge’s conclusion on the first issue was sufficient to dispose of the case in favour of SYMS HK. However, since the second issue was argued, the Judge proposed also to state his conclusion on it.
Under the terms of the bill of lading, the shipper made certain warranties regarding the goods to be carried and accepted responsibility for the particulars relating to the goods as set out on the front of the bill of lading and also agreed to indemnify the carrier against loss, damage or expense arising or resulting from inaccuracies in those particulars. The relevant clauses are set out below:-
3) WARRANTIES. The Merchant represents, warrants and agrees that: (a) The Goods and any Container loaded by the Merchant are packed and secured in such a manner as to be handled in the ordinary course of transportation without damage to the Goods, Vessel, Containers or other property or persons …
13) MERCHANT’S RESPONSIBILTY AND INDEMNIFICATION. … 2. The Merchant further warrants to the Carrier that the particulars relating to the Goods as set out on the front of this Bill of Lading have been checked by the Merchant on receipt of this Bill of Lading and that such particulars and any other particulars furnished by or on behalf of the Merchant and are adequate, accurate and correct … 3. The Merchant shall indemnify the Carrier against all loss, damage and expenses arising or resulting from inaccuracies in or inadequacy of such particulars …
15) MERCHANT-PACKED CONTAINERS. 1. If a Container has not been filled, packed, stuffed or loaded by the Carrier, the Carrier shall not be liable for loss of or damage to the contents and the Merchant shall indemnify the Carrier against any loss, damage, liability or expense incurred by the Carrier, if such loss, damage, liability or expense has been caused by: (a) the manner in which the Container has been filled, packed, stuffed or loaded; …
The containers were loaded by or on behalf of the shipper. Each of the shipper orders submitted by the forwarder on behalf of the shipper contained a notation stating: “SHIPPER CONFIRM THE RF WOULD NOT OVER 34MT AND THEY PROVIDE THE L/G. PLEASE ACCEPT THT SHIPPER DOES NOT PROVIDE MEASURED RECEIPT.” Furthermore, in an e‑mail from the forwarder to SYMS HK dated 1/8/2008, containing shipping instructions, the instructions stated the weight of each of the seven containers to be 28,000 kgs. This weight was used to calculate the gross weight of the seven containers as stated in the original bill of lading relating to the seven containers, namely 196,000 kgs.
The evidence adduced by SYMS HK included a survey report compiled by Hench dated 4/8/2008 on behalf of SYMS HK. This evidence was that the damaged container contained a weight of cargo of 36,180 kgs. Hench’s survey report expressed the opinion that the cause of the shipper’s container toppling over when it was being lifted by the lifting truck “could be attributed to the over-weight/over-loaded of cargo inside the container”. A survey report dated 5/8/2008 was also prepared by Delta on behalf of CMCS, the operator of the container terminal at Tsing Yi. That report assessed the weight of the damaged container to be 40,910 kgs. Delta also expressed the opinion that the lifting truck toppled over because the container was in excess of the maximum weight limit of the lifting truck. As a result of the toppling over of the lifting truck and the damage to the container, claims and charges were incurred. By a letter from SYMS HK to the forwarder dated 5/8/2008, SYMS HK advised the forwarder that CMCS, the terminal operator, was claiming repairing charges for the lifting truck and various other fees and expenses and that SYMS HK was claiming repairing charges for the damaged container as well as other fees and expenses. The total amount of the claims was HK$515,966.29. Subsequent to the arrival of the vessel at Haiphong, arrangements were made to weigh the six containers which had been discharged there. Instead of their declared weight of 28,000 kgs each, the six containers were respectively found to weigh from 35,400 kgs to 41,140 kgs. The Carrier was accordingly entitled to charge an overweight fee of US$3,000 and a scale fee of US$110 in respect of each of the six containers.
The Judge found that the cause of the accident and the damage to the container and the lifting truck was the fact that the container was overweight.
The relevant clause of the bill of lading governing the carrier’s lien provides as follows:-
23) LIEN. The Carrier shall have a lien on the Goods and any document relating thereto, which shall survive delivery, for all sums earned or due or payable to the Carrier under this and/or any other contract with the Merchant, or on account of the Goods or carriage, storage or handling of the Goods, including but not limited to, general average contributions, freight, delivery, destination, demurrage, detention, port and/or handling charges, to whomever due and/or for the cost of recovering the same and/or any fines or penalties levied against the Carrier by reason of any acts or omissions for which the Merchant is responsible. Carrier may at its sole discretion exercise its lien at any time and at any place, whether the contractual transportation is completed or not. For the purpose of such lien the Carrier shall have the right to sell the Goods, by public auction or private treaty without notice to the Merchant at any time and at any place at the sole discretion of the Carrier. The Carrier shall be entitled to claim the difference in the event that the sale proceeds fail to cover the full amount due to the Carrier.
The shipper submitted that the words in the above clause “all sums earned or due or payable to the Carrier” should be construed as sums representing remuneration for service and that “on account of the Goods, or carriage, storage or handling of the Goods, …” should be construed as expenses for managing the goods themselves for the purpose of their carriage. The shipper submitted that fines or penalties were different from damages and that if the parties intended that damages suffered by the carrier due to fault on the part of the shipper were to be covered by the lien, it would have been quite simple to include the words “damages and loss”.
The Judge rejected the shipper’s argument in this regard. Clause 23 fell to be construed in accordance with its natural and ordinary meaning. In the Judge’s judgment, the sums claimed in respect of the damaged container and the damage to the lifting truck, arising as a result of the shipper misstating the weight of the cargo on the bill of lading and submitting containers which exceeded the stipulated weight limit, constituted sums “due or payable to the Carrier under this and/or any other contract with Merchant”. Similarly, in the Judge’s judgment, the overweight fees and scale fees for the other six containers constituted sums “due or payable to the Carrier under this and/or any other contract with the Merchant” and/or “due or payable to the Merchant … on account of the Goods or carriage, storage or handling of the Goods”. The Judge added, for the sake of completeness, that an argument of the shipper that the carrier should not have detained all the containers in the exercise of the lien, since the value of the goods in total was worth HK$4 million, which was far in excess of the sums claimed and in respect of which the lien was being exercised. The Judge rejected this argument also. The judge did not see any basis for construing clause 23 as being restricted as to the amount or value of the goods over which the carrier was entitled to exercise a lien.
In the circumstances, if, contrary to the Judge’s conclusion on the first issue, the Judge had concluded that SYMS HK was the contractual carrier, the Judge would have held that the initial refusal to release the cargo was justified by the carrier’s exercise of a lien over the goods pursuant to clause 23 of the bill of lading.
The third issue: whether SYMS HK was liable to the shipper and, if so, for what damages
In the light of the Judge’s conclusions on the first two issues, it followed that, in the Judge’s judgment, there was no liability on the part of SYMS HK to the shipper as claimed in this action. The question of damages due from SYMS HK to the shipper did not therefore arise.
The Judge therefore dismissed the shipper’s claim against SYMS HK. The Judge made an order nisi that shipper pay the costs of the action to SYMS HK, to be taxed if not agreed.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or you would like to have a copy of the Judgment.
23/F, Excel Centre, 483A Castle Peak Road, Lai Chi Kok, Kowloon, Hong Kong 香港九龍荔枝角青山道483A卓匯中心23樓 Tel: 2299 5566 Fax: 2866 7096 E-mail: gm@smicsl.com Website: www.sun-mobility.com A MEMBER OF THE HONG KONG CONFEDERATION OF INSURANCE BROKERS 香港保險顧問聯會會員
The robust freight industry in 2009 did not sustain well to the last quarter of 2010 as worldwide governments were not in unison in their fiscal policies. The worldwide government interference in 2011, such as the U.S. QEII, is likely to impact the worldwide movement of freight even more.
As uncertain as it was the economy in 2010, we believe the number of E&O, uncollected cargo and completion of carriage claims will continue the major concerns for transport operators in 2011. If you need a cost effective professional solution to defend claims against you, our claim team of five are ready to assist. Feel free to call Carrie Chung / George Cheung at 2299 5539 / 2299 5533.
According to the Hague-Visby Rules, the carrier shall be discharged of all liability in respect of the cargoes unless suit is brought within one year of their delivery or the date when they should have been delivered. The English High Court issued a Judgment on 22nd July 2025 explaining the meaning of “suit”. [2025 EWHC 1878 (Comm)]
The High Court of Hong Kong issued a Judgment on 4/5/2012 explaining some legal principles as to when shipowners should fear the arrest of their ships. [HCAJ 141/2010]
The District Court of Hong Kong issued a Judgment on 21/4/2011 dismissing a forwarder’s cargo indemnity claim of US$46,201.81 against a trucking company. [DCCJ 2092/2009]
Remember our Chans advice/163 about the English High Court’s Judgment holding the Hague Visby Rules instead of the Hague Rules to apply to the cargo damage claim case in excess of US$3.6 million? The English Court of Appeal issued a Judgment on 24/2/2016 upholding the High Court’s conclusion but with different reasons. [Case No: A3/2014/1285, 2016 EWCA Civ 101, 2016 WL 00692394]
The Hong Kong District Court issued a Decision on 30 April 2021 dealing with a personal injury case in relation to a container terminal. [DCPI 110/2020] [2021 HKDC 463]
While the MOL Comfort incident was a disaster widely talked about among forwarders, all who suffered loss without exception will try whatever means to recover their losses down the line wherever the legal regimes permit.
More and more junior staff of the banks insist all the Bills of Lading to be signed and issued with the above remark “As agent for the Carrier”. This is of course right if the concerned Carrier does not have its own office in the place of issuing the Bill of Lading and therefore instruct its agent there to issue the Carrier’s Bill of Lading.
This continues the Q&A in our off-line real seminar on Uncollected and Undelivered Cargo on 28 May 2024. Participants were keen to know more about seaway bills, how war plays in insurance? How modes of transport differ mis-delivery claims handling? What is insurers’ attitude towards transloading claims? And finally, why mis-delivery and uncollected cargo claims deserve special attention. SMIC deals with similar questions daily. Each case varies in its cause, and therefore healing recipe differs. But if you are conversant with fundamentals. They could be simple.
Remember Chans advice/142 dated 31/10/2012 that the High Court of Hong Kong held the forwarder liable for cargo misdelivery without production of original bills of lading? The High Court of Hong Kong issued another Judgment on 4/12/2012 dealing with the interest and costs. [HCCL 20/2011 & HCCL 21/2011]
The Hong Kong District Court issued a Judgment on 28/4/2014 dismissing a seller’s cargo misdelivery claim of US$122,302.80 against a freight forwarder and holding the seller liable to pay the outstanding freight charges of US$28,855 to the forwarder. [DCCJ 344/2010]
More than 10 years ago, we broke new grounds unheard of before among insurance brokers by introducing genuine claim support (by truly employing a team of professional transport claim handlers) independent of that from the insurers. Since then, the knowledge advantage of the insurer over that of the transport operator insured has been evened. Those who buy transport liability insurance are truly better protected with professionals standing at their side who really know the freight industry and are conversant in transport insurance and claims handling.
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 11 May 2021 staying a South Korea container terminal’s legal action in Hong Kong with respect to its allision claims of more than US$90,000,000 against the owners of a container ship. [HCAJ 31/2020] [2021 HKCFI 1283]
The English High Court issued a Judgment on 15/5/2015 maintaining an anti-suit injunction to restrain the Xiamen Maritime Court’s legal proceedings in breach of a London arbitration agreement. [Case No: 2015-515], [2015 WL 2238741], [2015 EWHC 1974 COMM]
Our Chans advice/191 reported a Hong Kong High Court’s case concerning a shipping company’s restitution claim against its former deputy general manager (Mr Ma) for HK$387,655,303.70. The latest development of this case is: the Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 1/2/2018 and a Decision on 9/2/2018 holding that Mr Ma was in contempt of Court as a result of his breach of a Mareva Injunction Order and that he be committed to prison for 4 months. [HCMP1115/2017] [2018 HKCFI176] [2018 HKCFI328]
In our newsletter last month, we talked about some essential terms in house Air Waybills. In this issue, as the continuation of the loss prevention exercise for freight forwarders, we would like to discuss some essential terms in house Bills of Lading.
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 11/8/2009 holding a shipping company could rely on two letters of indemnity to seek compensation of US$253,655.50 from a forwarder and a trading company in a case of cargo release without production of original bills of lading. [HCA 208/2008]
The English Court of Appeal issued a Judgment on 31/7/2009 holding a charterparty clause (concerning late redelivery) as a penalty clause and thereby unenforceable. [2009] EWCA Civ 855;[2009] All ER (D) 35 (Aug)
In Chans advice/215, we reported the High Court of Hong Kong refused Changhong Group’s application to stay the Hong Kong action. The Court of Appeal also subsequently dismissed Changhong Group’s appeal. On 13 July 2020, the Court of Final Appeal finally dismissed Changhong Group’s application for leave to appeal. [FAMV No. 34 of 2020] [2020 HKCFA 24]
The Hong Kong High Court on 18/11/2011 issued a Judgment concerning a quite confusing situation that three different laws (the USA, the PRC, and Hong Kong) might apply to the one shipment. [HCAJ 198/2009]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 3/8/2011 holding that a Korean shipping company could not rely on its Bill of Lading’s Korean jurisdiction clause to stay a Hong Kong legal action. [HCCL 13/2010]
In the issue of our Chans advice last month, we talked about the major provisions of the Montreal Convention (which is for the international carriage of goods by air). In this issue, we would like to discuss the major terms of an equally important international convention for the international carriage of goods by sea, viz. the Hague Visby Rules.
The English High Court issued a Judgment on 31/7/2015 dismissing a cargo owner’s conversion claim US $565,891.58 against a shipowner in an uncollected cargo case. [(2015) EWHC 2288 (Comm), (2015) 2 C.L.C. 415]
The English High Court issued a Judgment on 26/2/2010 holding that a shipping company could follow the shipper’s instructions to change the consignee and the destination in its bill of lading and that the original consignee became having no title to sue. (2010 WL 606031)
We have received a lot of cargo claims from our forwarder clients in the recent months. In this issue, we would like to discuss in general how the forwarders should handle the cargo claims.
The English High Court issued a Judgment on 2/4/2014 holding the Hague Visby Rules instead of the Hague Rules (as incorporated by a Paramount Clause) to apply to a shipment ex Belgium. [Case No: 2012 Folio 102, 2014 EWHC 971 Comm, 2014 WL 1219313]
The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (“the CFA”) issued a Judgment on 10/9/2014 dismissing a cargo owner’s (“the Assured”) cargo insurance claim of US$1,555,209.00 against an insurance company (“the Insurer”) on the ground that the Assured had breached an insurance warranty relating to the carrying vessel’s deadweight capacity. [FACV No. 18 of 2013]
The English Court of Appeal issued a Judgment on 13/12/2017 dealing with a cargo damage claim of EUR2,654,238 and a charter hire claim of USD1,012,740 in connection with a NYPE charterparty. [2017 EWCA Civ 2107] [2017 WL 06343564] [Case No. A3/2016/4770]
We refer to our Chans advice/251 last month reporting the Hong Kong High Court’s decision to sentence Mr Ma (Hyundai Hong Kong’s former deputy general manager) to 15 years’ imprisonment. The High Court issued another Judgment on 27 April 2022 holding Mr Ma liable to compensate HK$387,655,303.70 to Hyundai Hong Kong. [HCA 619/2016] [2022 HKCFI 1153]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 25 February 2019 dealing with Changhong Group’s delayed application for leave to appeal in relation to the collision case reported in our Chans advice/218 and Chans advice/215. [HCAJ3/2018, 2019HKCFI542]
The PRC Supreme Court on 26/11/2015 issued a Judgment holding a shipping company’s container demurrage claim against a shipper time barred. [2015民提字第119號]
The High Court of Hong Kong issued a Decision on 23 May 2018 allowing a shipowner to be represented by 2 different firms of solicitors (one appointed by its hull underwriters and the other appointed by its P&I Club). [HCAJ84/2017] [2018HKCFI1136]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 3/2/2017 holding Natural Dairy liable to pay HK$4,360,948.38 to Schenker being the outstanding freight charges. In the Judgment, the Judge also explained the principles regarding the meaning of notice of the forwarder’s standard trading conditions. [HCA 1755/2011].
The Shanghai Maritime Court issued a Judgment on 24/12/2009 to deal with the question whether a shipping company could charge the container demurrage based on the tariff published on its website.
The Hong Kong High Court issued a judgment on 12/4/2016 to dismiss a cargo owner’s action in respect of breaking a barge owner’s tonnage limitation. [HCAJ 178/2014]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 23/12/2013 dealing with an application for security for costs in relation to a ship sinking case. [HCAJ 213/2009]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 5/8/2015 holding that a shipment of formula milk powder without the legally required export licence should not be forfeited. [HCMA171/2015]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 29/4/2013 relating to a discovery order ancillary to and in support of a Mareva injunction. [HCA 2124/2011]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 22/11/2013 concerning an unless order in relation to a freight forwarder’s claims for outstanding freight charges of HK$4,427,336. [HCA 1755/2011]
The High Court of Hong Kong issued a Judgment on 26/8/2011 to determine which ship to blame in a collision case that occurred at Shanghai. [HCAJ 200/2007]
Remember our Chans advice/112 that the Hong Kong High Court held the Rotterdam terminal liable to pay the cargo value of €950,071.20 for the misdelivery of one container of Sony Play Stations? On 2/4/2013, Judge To of the Hong Kong High Court issued another Judgment holding that the forwarder was entitled to limit its liability to US$24,392 in accordance with its B/L terms. [HCAJ 106/2008]
Following the Hong Kong Court of Appeal’s Judgment dated 11/3/2015 discharging the Mareva Injunctions and the receivership orders (mentioned in our monthly newsletter of Chans advice/171 two months ago), the Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 12/5/2015 to determine the question of who should pay the remuneration to the receivers. [HCMP 1449/2014]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a decision on 31 May 2022 ordering a South Korean shipowner to provide a Hong Kong shipowner with security for costs in the amount of HK$600,000 in relation to a ship collision case that happened in Hong Kong during the super typhoon Hato in August 2017. [HCAJ 80-85/2019] [2022 HKCFI 1631]
We reported in our Chans advice/252 that the Hong Kong High Court held Hyundai Hong Kong’s ex-Deputy General Manager (Mr Ma) liable to compensate HK$387,655,303.70 to Hyundai Hong Kong in the case of his theft of his employer’s money. On 23 December 2022, the Hong Kong High Court issued a decision ordering a sum of HK$500,000 (which was deposited by Mr Ma as bail money) to be released to Hyundai Hong Kong in partial satisfaction of Mr Ma’s judgment debt. [HCA 619/2016] [2022 HKCFI 3798]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 2 October 2024 dismissing a shipping company’s application to strike out a forwarder’s third party indemnity claim in a cargo (frozen beef) damage case. [HCAJ 9/2023, HCAJ 22/2023, 2024 HKCFI 2708]
There are three ways of fulfilling the deposit requirement of the Ministry of Transport (“MOT”) in the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) for your NVOCC license.
In the transport industry, the contracts of carriage (e.g. Bills of Lading, Air Waybills) usually contain an exclusive jurisdiction clause for settling disputes. However, it is not uncommon that the shippers and consignees sue the transport operators in a court other than the one specified in the exclusive jurisdiction clause. In Hong Kong, the transport operators may rely on the Foreign Judgments (Restriction on Recognition and Enforcement) Ordinance to tackle this kind of situation.
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision As To Costs on 5 December 2024 ordering a shipowner (which lost in an anti-suit injunction court case) to pay the winning party’s (a cargo owner) costs on an indemnity basis. HCCT 66/2024 [2024 HKCFI 3511]
Remember Chans advice/142 and Chans advice/145 that the High Court of Hong Kong held the forwarder liable for cargo misdelivery without production of original bills of lading? The Court of Appeal of Hong Kong issued a Judgment on 31/1/2013 dismissing the forwarder’s applications for an extension of time to appeal. [HCMP 2366/2012 & HCMP 2367/2012]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 2/6/2017 dealing with the liability apportionment among 3 vessels in 2 almost simultaneous collisions that happened near Hong Kong on 14/5/2011. [HCAJ158/2012 and HCAJ49/2013 and HCAJ48/2011]
The Hong Kong Court of Appeal on 1 December 2021 allowed a charterer’s appeal against a High Court’s Decision dated 13 April 2021 (which disallowed the charterer’s charter hire claims of US$234,955 against the shipowner because the High Court was not satisfied the claims were well founded). [CACV 294/2021] [2021 HKCA 1865]
The High Court of Hong Kong issued a Decision on 31/8/2018 concerning a feeder company’s claim against a shipping company’s lawyer for wasted costs. [HCA1919/2016] [2018HKCFI1879]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 11/12/2013 holding that a Hong Kong plaintiff needed to put up a security for costs in a court case concerning a yacht sinking incident. [HCCL 5/2013]
The High Court of Hong Kong issued a Judgment on 22/5/2017 holding that the District Court has jurisdiction to determine bill of lading and bailment cases. [HCAJ 150/2014]
In this issue, we would like to continue with the case (CSAV v Hin-Pro) mentioned in our monthly newsletter of Chans advice/169 two months ago. The Hong Kong Court of Appeal issued its Judgment on 11/3/2015 discharging the Mareva Injunctions and the receivership orders granted by DHCJ Saunders against Hin-Pro and Soar. [CACV 243/2014]
The 12th annual SMIC seminar on uncollected cargoes pulled some 300 participants to attend with much curiosity for 3 hours in the YMCA Assembly Hall. The accumulated questionmarks and enigmas about the subject matter lurking in the trade were unleashed among the audiences.
The Montreal Convention is an international treaty agreed by 140 states in respect of governing carriers’ liability for injury or death of passengers, damage to or loss of baggage and cargo and losses caused by delays. Hong Kong has adopted it through the Carriage by Air Ordinance (Cap 500).
The limit of liability for international carriage of cargoes by air under the Montreal Convention has been revised from 19 SDR/Kg to 22 SDR/Kg of the gross weight of the cargoes effective from 28 December 2019. We have received many enquiries from freight forwarders about changing their house Air Waybills’ terms to cope with the new limit of liability. We would like to take this opportunity to discuss some essential terms in house Air Waybills.
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 22 Feb 2021 holding that the wreck removal claims of a ship sunk were not subject to the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976. [HCAJ 98/2019] [2021 HKCFI 396]
The Hong Kong Court of Appeal issued a Judgment on 20 September 2019 declining to give leave of appeal to Changhong Group in relation to the High Court Decision dated 29 January 2019 (reported in our Chans advice/221). [CAMP197/2019] [2019HKCA1061]
In Chans advice/14 dated 28/2/2002, we discussed this topic 15 years ago. In its Judgment dated 16/10/2017, the District Court of New South Wales in Australia had to deal with, inter alia, a malpractice that a forwarder issued its own house B/Ls but signed off with as agent for China Ocean Shipping, Pacific International Lines, Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Limited or Orient Overseas Container Line without authority. [2017 NSWDC 279]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 15 March 2021 converting a domestic Mareva injunction into a worldwide Mareva injunction in a shipowner’s freight and demurrage claim against a charterer. [HCMP 1190/2020] [2021 HKCFI 680]
The Hong Kong District Court issued a Judgment on 26 April 2022 dealing with a case concerned with transfer of business and lifting the corporate veil, and held a forwarder and its shareholder and director jointly and severally liable for a debt of HK$975,733.71. [DCCJ 2104/2019] [2022 HKDC 289]
On 12/4/2017, the Hong Kong High Court dismissed an application made by a cargo owner for stay of proceedings commenced by two forwarders in relation to an uncollected cargo case. [HCA 1927/2016]
We have received some enquiries from our forwarder clients about the FCR e.g. what is FCR? How many types of FCR are there? What are the uses of FCR? We would like to discuss these in this issue.
Without even knowing, we have published including this one 200 issues of the Chans Advice. As this is a monthly bulletin, 100 issues took more than 8 years and 200 issues took 17 years to run.
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 29 January 2019 dismissing Changhong Group’s application for stay of the legal proceedings against it brought by the consignee and the insurer of the cargo on board the Sanchi. [HCAJ6/2018, 2019HKCFI263]
On 5/8/2011, the District Court of Hong Kong dismissed a shipping company’s container claims against a forwarder for want of prosecution and abuse of process. [DCCJ 765/2005]
Remember our Chans advice/138 regarding the Hong Kong High Court’s Judgment holding the He Da 98’s owners fully liable in the collision that happened off Shanghai? The Hong Kong High Court issued its Decision on 18/1/2013 dealing with the damages to be paid to the Pontodamon’s owners. [HCAJ 200/2007]
We recently have received a lot of uncollected cargo claim cases from our forwarder clients, which have kept our 6 claim handlers very busy. We would like to take this opportunity to talk about this troublesome problem of uncollected cargoes. Actually, the forwarders have been facing this real headache in at least these two decades.
The amendment to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) 1974 Chapter VI, Regulation 2 in respect of the verified gross mass of a container carrying cargo (laden container) is for entry into force globally on 1 July 2016.
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 9/5/2017 allowing a time extension for some cargo interests to claim against the Tonnage Limitation Fund constituted by the owner of one of the two vessels involved in a collision that happened on 7/11/2013. [HCAJ 189/2013]
The English Court of Appeal gave a Judgment on 6/7/1987 explaining how to calculate the suit time limit for the indemnity claim under the Hague Visby Rules. ([1987] 1 W.L.R. 1213)
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 11 January 2019 dealing with a dispute of US$335,858.31 between a bunker supplier and a ship agent. [HCA119/2015] [2019HKCFI57]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 19 March 2018 dealing with some legal principles in relation to granting relief against unless orders in a ship collision case. [HCAJ 84/2017] [2018 HKCFI 609]
In our Chans advice/244, we reported the Hong Kong High Court case [HCA937/2016] [2021 HKCFI 2310] that the forwarder was held liable to pay nominal damages of HKD1,000 to the shipper in the cargo misdelivery claim of USD1,299,189.87. On 20 October 2021, the Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on Costs holding the shipper liable to pay the costs of the forwarder. [2021 HKCFI 3021]
In Chans advice/215, we reported that the Hong Kong High Court refused Changhong Group’s application to stay the Hong Kong proceedings; and in Chans advice/234, we reported that the Court of Final Appeal dismissed Changhong Group’s application for leave to appeal. On 7 April 2022, the Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision dealing with Changhong Group’s action to re-litigate its stay application. [HCAJ 3/2018] [2022 HKCFI 920]
The High Court of Hong Kong issued a Judgment on 3/2/2012 concerning which currency (US$ or Euro) should be the proper one for the cargo owners in a shipment to claim against the forwarder for compensation in a cargo damage case. [HCAJ 152/2010]
The English Court of Appeal issued a Judgment on 20/1/2011 holding two clauses in the standard trading conditions of the British International Freight Association valid. One of them was about all sums due to the forwarder to be paid without reduction or deferment on account of any claim, counterclaim or set-off. The other was about the 9-month suit time limit. [2011] All ER (D) 128 (Jan); [2011] EWCA Civ 18
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 24/11/2015 dealing with a mandatory injunction and specific performance in respect of a letter of indemnity in connection with a delivery of cargo without production of the original bills of lading. [HCCL 12/2015]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 27/5/2011 in relation to an air shipment that a forwarder issued two sets of its House Air Waybills to two different parties for one lot of cargoes. [HCCL 117/1994]
The Hong Kong Court of Appeal issued a Judgment [CACV144/2017] [2018HKCA299] on 29/6/2018 upholding the High Court’s Judgment dated 2/6/2017 (which was reported in our Chans advice/201).
The Hong Kong High Court issued a judgment on 30/4/2015 dealing with the legal principles in respect of the order of priorities in distributing the sale proceeds of an arrested ship. [HCAJ 129/2013]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 4 March 2020 dismissing a shipowner’s application for a stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration in a case of cargo misdelivery without presentation of original bill of lading. [HCAJ 5/2019] [2020 HKCFI 375]
The Hong Kong District Court issued a Judgment on 8/4/2014 holding that the one year’s suit time limit under the Hague Visby Rules does not apply to the carrier’s claims against the shipper. [DCCJ 4438/2013]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a decision on 11/9/2013 concerning a shipowner’s application to extend the validity of a writ of summons against a Taiwan hull and machinery insurer. [HCAJ 95/2012]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 18/11/2016 dismissing a shipping company’s application for summary judgment against its former deputy general manager (Mr Ma) for restitution of the sum of HK$387,655,303.70 on the ground of money had and received and/or unjust enrichment. [HCA 619/2016]
The Court of Appeal of Hong Kong issued a judgment on 28 March 2019 dealing with a matter concerning the sale pendente lite of an oil tanker Brightoil Glory. [CAMP49/2019][2019HKCA395]
The 10th annual SMIC seminar on Forwarders’ Standard Trading Conditions wrapped a decade of unabated effort hammering for the freight industry’s attention to loss prevention by proper freight documents. The topic had attracted over 300 participants to attentively listening for 3 hours in the YMCA Assembly Hall. We thank them all for the patience.
The Hong Kong District Court issued a Judgment on 8/2/2011 holding a Hong Kong forwarder liable for its refusing to release the cargoes to a consignee without production of the original straight Bill of Lading. [DCCJ 3467/2009]
Against the post-Covid tide, we ran an off-line real seminar on Uncollected and Undelivered Cargo on 28 May 2024. Attendance could not be compared with any webinars but the number of enthusiastic questions in the Q&A session reflected the demand for transport liability issue solutions. For the sake of recapitulations and sharing the Q&A among the Chan Advice readership, we like to report the Q&A in two issues. We welcome any other questions you may have on the following.
In our last issue of Chans advice/253, the Hong Kong District Court’s judgment dated 26 April 2022 mentioned a case authority of China Ocean v Mitrans Shipping. We would like to discuss this judgment dated 11 July 1995 of the Hong Kong Court of Appeal in our Chans advice this month. [1995 No. 71 Civil]
The Hong Kong Court of Appeal issued a Judgment on 20 February 2019 dismissing Changhong Group’s appeal against the High Court’s Decision of 15 November 2018 (reported in Chans advice/215) because Changhong Group had not obtained leave to appeal from the Hong Kong High Court. [CACV576/2018] [2019HKCA246]
In the last issue of Chans advice, we reported the case that the Hong Kong Court of Appeal rejected the mortgagee’s appeal against the High Court’s order of granting a stay until 24 April 2019 for the sale of the Vessel Brightoil Glory. On 17 May 2019, the Court of Appeal issued another judgment refusing the shipowners’ appeal in respect of their application for a further stay of the sale of the Vessel until 22 May 2019. [CAMP81/2019] [2019 HKCA 561]
To continue our recent series of loss prevention articles, we would like to discuss in this issue the major provisions of the PRC Maritime Code as far as the international carriage of goods by sea is concerned.
The Ningbo Maritime Court issued a Judgment on 25/5/2016, and dismissed a cargo insurer’s (PICC Ningbo) recovery claim of USD25,238.40 against Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd (“MOSK”) in relation to the vessel MOL Comfort sinking into the Indian Ocean on 17/6/2013.
The High Court of Hong Kong issued a summary Judgment on 28/9/2012 holding a forwarder liable for US$626,389 plus costs and interest for misdelivery of cargoes without production of the original bills of lading. [HCCL 20/2011 & HCCL 21/2011]
We mentioned in our Chans advice/225 that the limit of liability under the Montreal Convention for carriage of cargoes was increased from 19 SDR/kg to 22 SDR/kg of the gross weight of the cargoes effective on 28 December 2019. We have recently received some forwarders’ request asking us to talk about the major terms in the Montreal Convention. We in this issue would like to introduce the Montreal Convention’s major provisions as follows:
The High Court of Hong Kong issued a Decision on 21/9/2017 dealing with the principles in respect of the real risk of dissipation of assets in a case of Mareva Injunction involving a shipowner and a charterer. [HCMP 1010/2017]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a ruling on 2/12/2016 dealing with a shipowner’s interrogatory application in relation to an uncollected cargo case. [HCAJ 118/2015]
Remember our last issue Chans advice/129 that the forwarder was held liable for its refusing to release the goods to the named consignee without original straight Bill of Lading? On 12/8/2011, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal issued a Judgment dismissing the forwarder’s application for leave to appeal. [HCMP 683/2011]
The Hong Kong Court of Appeal issued a Judgment on 4 October 2019 upholding the High Court’s Decision dated 9 April 2018 (reported in our Chans advice/208). [CACV593/2018][2019HKCA1101]
Following the issue of Chans advice last month, we would like to report the latest decision issued by the court over this theft case. On 17 January 2023, the Hong Kong High Court dismissed Mr Ma’s application to withdraw HK$1.5 million out of his frozen assets for paying the legal costs for his appeal against conviction in theft. [HCA 619/2016] [2023 HKCFI 197]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 13 August 2021 holding a forwarder liable to pay nominal damages of HKD1,000 to a shipper in a cargo misdelivery claim case of USD1,299,189.87. [HCA 937/2016] [2021 HKCFI 2310]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 16 January 2019 dealing with the appeal of the wasted costs’ case reported by our Chans advice/214. [HCA1919/2016] [2019HKCFI127]
The High Court of Hong Kong issued a Judgment on 21/7/2014, in which some legal principles relating to the in rem jurisdiction of the Court to arrest vessels were explained. [HCAJ 241/2009]
Remember our Chans advice/171 of 31/3/2015 reporting that the Hong Kong Court of Appeal discharged the Mareva injunctions against Hin-Pro? The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal issued a Judgment on 14/11/2016 reversing the Court of Appeal’s Judgment of 11/3/2015. [FACA No. 1 of 2016]
The Hong Kong Court of Appeal’s Judgment dated 11/4/2008 explained some legal principles relating to whether indemnity claims are allowed by in rem legal actions against vessels. [CACV 257/2007]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a judgment on 21/4/2016 and disallowed a cargo owner’s application for summary judgment against a forwarder in connection with a cargo (a diamond) missing claim of US$900,000. [HCCL 10/2015]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 21 July 2023 in relation to a case that an aircraft (worth at least USD 80 million) and its cargoes were destroyed by a fire caused by the goods of chlorine dioxide disinfection tablets. [HCA 837/2022] [2023 HKCFI 1896]
The VGM laws have come into operation in Hong Kong since 1/7/2016. They are mainly contained in Section 3 and Section 3A of the Merchant Shipping (Safety) (Carriage of Cargoes and Oil Fuel) Regulation (Chapter 369AV) as follows:
The High Court of Hong Kong issued a Judgment on 1/11/2012 ordering the USA/Canada owners of a cargo (a yacht) to put up HK$250,000 as further security for costs in their legal action against the ship owners. [HCAJ 177/2009]
The Hong Kong Court of Appeal issued a Judgment on 17/7/2014 holding a Hong Kong forwarder liable to pay US$852,339 plus costs and interest (as damages for conversion) to an Indian bank in an air cargo misdelivery case. [CACV 282/2012]
Are Standard Trading Conditions (“STC”) equivalent to the House Bill of Lading (“HB/L”) terms or the House Air Waybill (“HAWB”) terms? We have been frequently asked this question by our forwarder clients.
In our Chans advice/169 last month, we mentioned the English Court’s Judgment dated 14/10/2014 holding CSAV’s bill of lading’s English jurisdiction clause to be an exclusive jurisdiction clause. In this issue, let’s look at that English High Court Judgment [2013 Folio No 1248, 2014 EWHC 3632 Comm, 2014 WL 5113447] issued by Justice Cooke in detail.
The Hong Kong District Court issued a Decision on 8 May 2020 upholding a summary judgment ordering one forwarder to pay outstanding airfreight charges of HK$440,000 to another forwarder. [DCCJ1202/2018] [2020HKDC307]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 22 January 2021 dealing with an appeal against a Small Claims Tribunal’s award concerning a dispute over a container terminal’s storage charges. [HCSA 44/2020] [2021 HKCFI 200]
The Hong Kong Court of Appeal issued a Judgment on 29/1/2016 dealing with a case of one or two days’ delay in appeal in relation to a barge sinking accident. [HCMP 3172/2015]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 20/12/2017 dealing with a dispute of US$948,802.05 (as the price of bunkers supplied to a vessel) between a vessel charterer and a bunker supplier. [HCA2265/2016]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 7/6/2011 explaining the concept of the package limitation of the United States Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. [HCAJ 181/2008]
SMIC has finally jumped on the bandwagon of the cyber media rush by its presence on the Facebook. We would have done this for a long time had it not been for the daily chores and that we were then not too convinced of its value in the commercial world. Thereafter, it becomes obvious that more and more firms are capitalizing on this new media; and unlike the old economies where information flow was imperfect, consumers of the new economies tend to prefer looking up for information by themselves from the web, or augmenting information they are given.
The Hong Kong Court of Appeal issued a Judgment on 9/7/2015 in relation to the High Court Judgment dated 21/7/2014 (reported in our Chans advice/167 dated 28/11/2014). [HCMP 2315/2014]
The High Court of Hong Kong issued a Decision on 15 November 2018 concerning the tragic collision between the cargo vessel CF Crystal and the tanker Sanchi, which happened on 6 January 2018 and led to the death of all the officers and crew of the Sanchi. [HCAJ3/2018] [2018HKCFI2474]
Does the law require forklift trucks to have the third party insurance of motor vehicles? The Hong Kong High Court’s Judgment [Magistracy Appeal No 241 of 1996] dated 2/5/1996 explained the legal principles to answer this question.
The Hong Kong Court of Appeal issued a Judgment on 18/12/2014 in connection with a cargo misdelivery claim of US$27,835,000 involving also anti-suit injunction and worldwide freezing order issued by the English Court. [CACV 243/2014 & HCMP 1449/2014]
In Chans advice/191 and Chans advice/206, we reported a case relating to a shipping company’s claim against its former deputy general manager (Mr Ma) over the alleged theft of the company’s money. The Hong Kong High Court on 16 December 2020 sentenced Mr Ma to 15 years’ imprisonment. [HCCC 20/2018] [2021 HKCFI 195]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 21/7/2014 discharging a Mareva injunction in relation to a cargo misdelivery claim of about US$12 million. [HCA 2368/2012]
What is the difference between a straight bill of lading and an order bill of lading? This can be illustrated in the Wuhan Maritime Court’s Judgment dated 17 September 2019 concerning a cargo misdelivery claim of US$89,838.
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 9/4/2018 dealing with a cargo total loss case in which a NVOC in Malta was wrongly sued (because it had the same name as that of the correct NVOC in BVI). [HCAJ 65/2016], [2018 HKCFI 699]
The English Commercial Court issued a Judgment on 7/11/2012 holding a carrier liable for US$458,655.69 owing to its issuing 13 clean Bills of Lading for a consignment of steel pipes which had some pre-shipment damage. [2012 EWHC 3124 (Comm)]
The Hong Kong Court of Appeal issued a Judgment on 12/2/2018 to deal with the cargo owners’ seeking leave to appeal against the High Court’s Judgment reported in our Chans advice/209 last month. [CAMP 38/2017] [2018 HKCA77]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 30 September 2021 holding a shipowner’s Defences as an abuse of process in a case of unpaid crew wages. [HCAJ 76/2020] [2021 HKCFI 2961] [HCAJ 91/2020]
The Hong Kong High Court on 13/8/2013 held a shipper liable to a shipping company for paying demurrage of US$1,645,286.74 plus interest and costs. [HCAJ 166/2011]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 13 May 2021 to deal with an interpleader action concerning the stakeholding of US$700,000 in relation to a dispute over some management fees between two transport operators. [HCMP510/2020] [2021 HKCFI 1373]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 25/8/2017 to determine whether the Hong Kong Court or the Yangon Court was the natural and appropriate forum in an in rem legal proceedings in relation to a cargo damage claim of USD143,852.02. [HCAJ 101/2015]
Remember our Chans advice/165 (reporting the Hong Kong Court of Appeal holding the Hong Kong forwarder liable to pay US$852,339 plus costs and interest to the Indian bank in the air cargo misdelivery case)? On 19/5/2016, the Court of Final Appeal dismissed the Hong Kong forwarder’s application for seeking leave to appeal. [FAMV Nos 45 & 52 of 2015]
As reported in our Chans advice/170 dated 27/2/2015, the English High Court on 14/10/2014 held CSAV’s bill of lading’s English jurisdiction clause as an exclusive jurisdiction clause. On 23/4/2015, the English Court of Appeal issued its Judgment reaching the same conclusion. [Neutral Citation No: 2015 EWCA Civ 401, Case No: A3/2014/3584]
The United States District Court (Southern District of New York) issued an order on 29 November 2021 to deny a shipping company’s motion to rely on the Singapore jurisdiction clause in its bill of lading. [1:19-cv-5731-GHW-RWL]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 22/8/2016 dealing with a case that a forwarder wanted to strike out a cargo misdelivery claim on the ground that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action. [HCCL 5/2015]
