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]
Having heard this admiralty action, the Honourable Mr. Justice Reyes on 26/8/2011 entered judgment on liability against the He Da 98’s owners in favour of the Pontodamon’s owners. The assessment of damages was adjourned for further directions. On 16/9/2011, the learned judge further ordered that the Pontodamon’s owners’ Claim on a Reference be dealt with by documents only before the Registrar of the High Court. The Amended Claim in a Reference eventually came before the Registrar on 7/1/2013 for assessment of damages on the papers.
On 30/11/2007, the vessel Pontodamon, a bulk carrier of 38,684 gross tonnes registered at the port of Limassol, Cyprus, was in collision with the vessel He Da 98 off Shanghai, PRC. Pontodamon was en route to Vancouver, Canada having just completed her scheduled dry-docking at the Chengxi Shipyard, PRC. Consequent upon the collision, Pontodamon sustained damage to her starboard shell plating and vertical frame over number 3, 6 and 7 cargo holds and had to be placed off-hire by her charterers pending repairs. Following surveys, Pontodamon proceeded to the Longshan Shipyard, Zhoushan, PRC where permanent repairs were carried out. The repairs were effected between 5/12/2007 and 12/12/2007 after which Pontodamon was redelivered fully efficient to the charterers.
The Pontodamon’s owners claimed loss and damage as particularized more fully in the Amended Claim in a Reference dated 10/3/2010. To advance their various claims, the Pontodamon’s owners had filed evidence and written submissions. In opposition, the He Da 98’s owners had done likewise, all pursuant to the learned judge’s directions. The Amended Claim in a Reference grouped the various heads of claim into three categories. They were: (a) the costs incurred at Shanghai (items 1 – 8), where Pontodamon went immediately after the collision; (b) the costs incurred at Zhoushan (items 9 – 26), where permanent repairs were undertaken at the Longshan shipyard; and (c) Agency (item 27).
On 30/11/2007, following completion of her scheduled dry-docking for maintenance at the end of November 2007, Pontodamon departed from the Chengxi Shipyard, Shanghai. At the time the vessel was under time charter to Bunge S.A. of Geneva, the charterparty having been made and concluded on 28/11/2007. On the outward passage leading to the open sea and while still in the vicinity of Shanghai, Pontodamon came into collision with the Chinese vessel He Da 98 heading for the port of Shanghai sustaining damage. Following the collision, both ships were requested by Shanghai Maritime Safety Administration to proceed to the Wusong anchorage for investigation. Eventually, Pontodamon was released, leaving Shanghai for the Zhoushan Longshan Shipyard on the morning of 4/12/2007. She arrived at the anchorage of the shipyard the same evening and berthed the following morning.
Costs incurred at Shanghai
Item 1 concerned Pilotage of US$6,974.56. This was a necessary expenditure and would be allowed as claimed.
Item 2 covered Launch Hire for transportation. The amount was US$1,632.65 and was plainly recoverable.
Item 3 for tug service was US$27,030.00. The Pontodamon’s owners was entitled to reimbursement in the same amount.
Item 4 is the claim for superintendence. The engagement of a superintendent to oversee and supervise ship collision damage repairs for shipowners such as the Pontodamon’s owners was plainly both a common feature and a necessity. There was no quarrel in this regard. The Pontodamon’s owners appointed Technomar Ltd for this purpose at the cost of US$14,381.08. Technomar Ltd arranged for the attendance of one of their superintendent engineers, Mr. Periklis Kiatos (“Mr. Kiatos”) to supervise repairs and to co-operate with the repairers and Class Surveyors both at Shanghai and the Zhoushan Longshan Shipyard. Mr. Kiatos was responsible for confirming the repairs undertaken, the accuracy of the final invoiced amount and for the signing off of the work completion report prior to the release and the sailing of the Pontodamon. Technomar Ltd charged the Pontodamon’s owners a daily rate of Euro 560 for the service. The He Da 98’s owners contended that the rate was too high, suggesting that a lower daily charge of Euro 375 was the appropriate rate at the time. No evidence for such contention was offered.
When a vessel is damaged in collision, the basis on which the owner is entitled to recover damages from the wrongdoer is different from that in cases of total or constructive total loss. The measure of damage is the amount necessary to indemnify the owner for the loss in respect of out-of-pocket expenses and detention of the ship. The cost of superintendence, being usual out-of-pocket expense is accordingly recoverable: see Marsden Collisions at Sea (13th ed. paras15-31, 15-32). As to quantum, the amount allowable would depend entirely on the facts of each case as there is no general fixed allowance in respect of superintendent’s costs. Some of the relevant factors for consideration encompass the country of residence of the superintendent, the location of the repairs, the experience and expertise of the shipyard tasked with the repairs and the complexity of the repairs to be undertaken.
The Pontodamon’s owners sought quotations from two reputable Hong Kong survey companies, namely London Offshore Consultants (Hong Kong) Ltd and Andrew Moore & Associates. Depending on the level of experience and expertise, the day rate cost of engaging a supervising superintendent to attend collision damage repairs to a vessel in Shanghai over a projected repair period of 12 days in 2007 ranged between US$1,700.00 and US$2,650.00. The Pontodamon’s owners opted for and was charged a day rate of Euro 560 plus incidental expenses such as hotel accommodation and air travel in relation to Mr. Kiatos (from Athens, Greece). There was nothing exceptional, extravagant or unreasonable in the amount pursued under item 4. The Pontodamon’s owners was entitled to recover the amount claimed in full.
Items 5 and 6 respectively Communication Charges (US$30.18) and Repatriation Costs (US$75.00) being agreed were allowed as claimed.
Item 7 was for agent’s service/transportation fee. The amount sought was US$75. The expense billed by China Marine Shipping Agency Shanghai Co. Ltd in relation to Mr. Kiatos would be allowed as claimed.
Agent’s fee of US$600.00 was the subject of item 8. The amount was also allowed in full.
Costs incurred at Zhoushan
Item 9 entitled Pilotage was for an amount of US$7,026.12. The service charged to the Pontodamon’s owners by the Zhoushan Harbour Administration Bureau related to Pilotage and Shifting. There was no basis for not allowing the same in full.
Items 10 and 11, respectively Anchorage Berthing (US$167.35) and Quarantine fees (US$408.16), charged by the Zhoushan Harbour Administration were recoverable in full.
Whilst the Pontodamon was at Zhoushan, tug service was a necessary expense. The cost was claimed under item 12. The service was provided at the total cost of US$5,582.59. There was no reason for not reimbursing this sum.
Item 13 had latterly been withdrawn for want of proof.
The superintendent incurred additional cost at Zhoushan for transportation (US$400.00) and shore pass fees (US$161.00). These costs under items 14 and 15 were recoverable.
Pontodamon underwent an occasional survey for hull damage. The class survey by Nippon Kaiji Kyokai was paid for in the amount of US$6,522.00. This cost was recoverable as claimed under item 16.
Item 17 was the damage survey fees. The preliminary damage survey was conducted by China Maritime Technical Services Ltd (“CMTS”) at the cost of US$29,024.00. Pontodamon was further surveyed by East China Adjuster & Surveyors Co. Ltd (“East China Adjusters”) at Shanghai and Zhoushan. The adjusters charged US$5,680.00 for their service. These being necessary and reasonable expenditure should be compensated in full.
By far the most contentious claim was the one relating to permanent repairs to Pontodamon for which an amount of US$380,000.00 was sought.
The He Da 98’s owners alleged that the amount was patently exorbitant, a consequence of the lack of proper tender. It was submitted that the work could have been undertaken at a more modest expense if more tenders than one had been sought, given the availability of other shipyards in the general vicinity technically competent to carry out the task that was not especially complex, entailing no more than about 33 metric tonnes of replacement steel. Considerable reliance was placed on the survey report of East China Adjusters with its suggested repair estimate of US$213,200.00 as also the valuation inspection report dated 16/7/2008 and the damage repair account audit dated 5/12/2010, both prepared by Ejoy Insurance Surveyors & Adjustors Co Ltd (“Ejoy Adjustors”) offering a lower estimate of US$187,533.00. In short, the He Da 98’s owners urged that there was a failure to mitigate loss by the Pontodamon’s owners in not obtaining the most competitive quotes. Further, it was contended that the circumstances relating to the settlement of the inflated repair account was suspect and unreliable.
At issue was whether the Pontodamon’s owners had taken proper, timely and reasonable steps to mitigate loss by putting Pontodamon’s repair out to tender, the burden of proof to the contrary being on the He Da 98’s owners.
The Pontodamon’s owners conceded that albeit not strictly a requirement, there was an expectation that tenders would be sought so as to minimize loss. That duty had been described thus:
No doubt a duty to put out work to tender will be readily inferred where there are a sufficient number of efficient firms able to do it, the work is of a straightforward character, and there is no pressure of time which necessitates its immediate commencement. By contrast, where there is only one yard which can practically do the work, or where there is a situation of urgency, there would be little point in asking for tenders. We therefore come back to the elementary question, whether the shipowner has, under the circumstances, and on the facts, acted reasonably.
(Marsden (supra) paragraph 15-35)
and the
duty may be expressed as being to make such arrangement for the repair of the damage as a prudent uninsured owner would make for himself.
(per Lord Merriman, The Pacific Concord [1960] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 270, at col. 1 page 283)
A detailed account of the tendering process and the eventual selection of the Zhoushan Longshan Shipyard to carry out permanent repairs on Pontodamon was set out in the evidence of Mr. George Vellis (“Mr. Vellis”), the Marine Technical Manager of the Pontodamon’s owners and Mr. Dimitris Vranopoulos (“Mr. Vranopoulos”), the Managing Director of Marine Plus SA (“Marine Plus”). At the end of November 2007 Mr. Vellis had to travel to China to attend Pontodamon following completion of her scheduled dry-docking at the Chengxi Shipyard at Shanghai. The dry-docking took place between 17/11/2007 and 30/11/2007. On 30/11/2007, shortly after Pontodamon sailed from the Chengxi Shipyard, the collision occurred at 2130 hrs local time. Earlier on the same day at 1010 hrs local time, pursuant to the Time Charter, the vessel had been delivered to Bunge SA, the charterers. Against this background and in order to minimize loss of hire at the daily rate of US$75,000.00, the Pontodamon’s owners was justifiably concerned to return Pontodamon to service following permanent repairs as quickly as possible. Marine Plus, a Greek company with extensive experience in assisting shipowners in having their vessels repaired in China since 1992 was asked to assist in sourcing shipyards and to obtain tenders for the permanent repairs to Pontodamon. Mr. Vranopoulos explained that Marine Plus had in the past worked very closely with Mr. Wu Xinyu (“Mr. Wu”), the Managing Director of Willing Shanghai Trading based in Shanghai. Mr. Vranopoulos and Mr. Wu approached eight potential shipyards in and around Shanghai to check for berth and dock availability. There being some urgency in effecting permanent repairs, the enquiries were conducted by telephone, hence the absence of records. As a result of the high freight market at the material time, most of the Chinese yards were engaged in new building work, exacerbating the difficulty of identifying a suitable repair yard.
In explaining the eventual selection of the Longshan Shipyard, Mr. Vranopoulos affirmed:
When trying to source a suitable shipyard to effect the repairs to Pontodamon, Mr. Wu and I were aware that some of the Chinese shipyards were technically unable to perform this repair work to an appropriate standard; and that some of those that were able to do so were not immediately available on such short notice. By technically able, I do not mean that the repairs then known to be needed were of a highly technical nature; but that the shipyard was not technically competent in my experience to properly carry out the required repairs.
In the end, we shortlisted two possible shipyards, namely Longshan Shipyard and Xinya Shipyard as we believed they were the most suitable of those available. Indeed, these were the only two yards of the eight yards that we approached that said they were able to accommodate the Vessel for repairs at this time. Both Longshan Shipyard and Xinya Shipyard are located on small islands near Zhoushan. Tender specifications were sent to both shipyards for them to provide their fee quotation for repairs. The fee quotations from Longshan Shipyard and Xinya Shipyard were then provided to and examined by Ocean Freighters and myself.
Only after Xinya Shipyard’s tender was received was it clear that Xinya Shipyard could not actually carry out the repairs. This was because Xinya Shipyard had insufficient space alongside a berth for Pontodamon. At Xinya Shipyard, the repair work would have to be conducted at least partly whilst Pontodamon was at anchor. The shipyard was unable to provide dry dock facilities for Pontodamon’s bottom repairs due to overbooking at the time. Ocean Freighter’s Technical Superintendent, Mr. Periklis Kiatos, was also sent to attend to these two shipyards and look into the situation more closely.
I agreed with the views of Mr. Kiatos that conducting the repairs at anchor at the Xinya Shipyard could cause delay and difficulties with the repair process. Shore cranes and staging could not be used whilst at anchor. Carrying out the repair work afloat at Xinya Shipyard plus the time waiting for a dry dock elsewhere, if need be, might result in an estimated 10 to 15 days of additional delay in the repair process. This was also clearly unacceptable.
In light of the above, and as the Longshan Shipyard had berth space immediately available, they were awarded the repair contract.
Another reason for awarding the repair contract to Longshan Shipyard was the difference in price for steel renewals in dock. Longshan Shipyard offered to charge USD4.2 per kg for steel renewals, whilst Xinya Shipyard offered to charge USD5.0 per kg. Longshan Shipyard’s quote was considered by Ocean Freighters to be more reasonably priced given the substantial amount of steelwork to be renewed.
Most shipyards in China were over-booked and the prices quoted were higher than usual. The base steel price quoted by Chinese yards was in the range of USD2.5 – 2.8 per kg but high surcharge was applied for steelworks done in dock of as much as 50% to 100%. In light of the urgency of the repairs to Pontodamon, as well as the fact that the steelwork had to be done in dock, we considered the price quoted by Longshan Shipyard, i.e. USD4.2 per kg, to be reasonable in all the circumstances; indeed, we believed at lower than the prevailing market price.
In light of the foregoing, I believe that Ocean Freighters, by instructing Marine Plus SA with extensive knowledge and expertise of shipyards in China, and finally awarding the repair contract to Longshan Shipyard, had taken the necessary steps to source a suitable shipyard for the permanent repairs to Pontodamon. The repairs were carried out in good time at a reasonable price after checking with a number of yards and obtaining and comparing the respective quotes from them.
Mr. Vellis’ 1st affirmation was to similar effect. In particular, he stated at paragraph 11:
The Longshan Shipyard was willing to guarantee access to both a repair berth and a dry dock facility, if needed, for the Pontodamon. The Xinya Shipyard however could not. I considered that the time to effect repairs afloat at the Xinya Shipyard plus the time waiting for a dry dock elsewhere, if needed, might conceivably lead to an estimated 10 to 15 days of additional delay in the repair process. Such a delay would be very costly not just in terms of the shipyard fees but also in terms of loss of hire. After careful consideration therefore, I recommended and the Owners decided to award the repair contract to the Longshan Shipyard. This decision was primarily based on the availability of alongside repair facilities and a dry dock, if necessary, during the proposed repair dates. This in turn would directly mitigate the Owner’s losses.
Mr. Vellis was also able to confirm that in order to resume service with minimal delay and keep Pontodamon fixed on her lucrative charterparty, Mr. Kiatos succeeded in negotiating a much earlier repair completion date with Longshan Shipyard and a discount of approximately 10% of the quoted repair price thereby achieving costs saving.
In his 2nd affirmation, Mr. Vellis added that it was the first time that Longshan Shipyard did any collision repair work for the owners of Pontodamon and Ocean Freighters and that no Owner’s work was carried out on the vessel whilst at the shipyard. In this regard, the Pontodamon’s owners had satisfactorily explained and addressed the He Da 98’s owners’ concern over the mismatch in the numbering of the Longshan invoice for permanent repairs and the invoice reference appearing on the Payment Debit Advice dated 12/12/2007 from its bank, The Royal Bank of Scotland. The mistake was obviously an innocent one and did not carry the connotation suggested by the He Da 98’s owners, namely that the telegraphic remittance was in settlement of some prior unrelated and undisclosed repair work on the Pontodamon.
There was ample evidence that the permanent repair costs had been paid in the amount of US$380,000.00. There was a receipt from Longshan Shipyard dated 12/12/2007 acknowledging payment of the sum partly by remittance and the balance in cash of US$175,200.00. The entire invoice was in fact settled on the very same day as its issuance. There was nothing sinister or untoward about the partial cash settlement of the repair charges as the He Da 98’s owners had attempted to make out. The cash portion was handed over to the shipyard by Mr. Kiatos in the presence of the Master Mr. Abdul Kader Zakkour (“Mr. Zakkour”). As to the source of the cash payment, the evidence and documents clearly demonstrated that on 19/11/2007, US$210,000.00 was withdrawn by Saturnus Maritime Co. from the Royal Bank of Scotland and given to Mr. Senicopoulos Alkis (“Mr. Alkis”), the Chief Cashier of the Pontodamon’s owners “in bank notes to be used for shipping purposes for the vessel Pontodamon presently under repairs at the Chengxi Shipyard Co. Ltd”. Pontodamon was dry-docked for scheduled maintenance at that shipyard between 17/11/2007 and 30/11/2007. Mr. Vellis confirmed that prior to leaving for China, he received that sum in cash from Mr. Alkis. The handing over of the money is evidenced by the receipt. The receipt acknowledged that the sum would “be used for the partial settlement of the cost of our m/v Pontodamon repair account with the Chengxi Shipyard Co Ltd” and that the money “will be handed over to the Director of Ocean Freighters Ltd Mr. Phaidon Moustakas presently on board our m/v Pontodamon presently undergoing repairs at the Chengxi Shipyard Co Ltd, China.” The funding was to ensure that Pontodamon’s release from the shipyard for the impending commencement of the time charter would not be delayed by any urgent or cash only invoices that had to be settled. Mr. Moustakas’ receipt of the money on 27/11/2007 from Mr. Vellis and how US$200,000,00 of that cash eventually came into the possession of Mr. Kiatos from Mr. Moustakas on 4/12/2007 can be discerned respectively from the receipts. As transpired, there being no urgent invoices requiring immediate settlement from the Chengxi Shipyard, the available fund instead was used “to pay for and expedite the collision damage repairs.” as per paragraph 13 of Mr. Vellis’ 1st affirmation.
There could be no doubt on the evidence that the repair bill in the sum of US$380,000.00 was paid in full in the manner described by the Pontodamon’s owners.
The He Da 98’s owners alleged that the permanent repairs could have been undertaken at considerably lower cost if there had been a genuine attempt to mitigate loss. Referring to the estimate from Ejoy Adjusters, it was contended that the damage to Pontodamon could have been made good for as little as US$187,533.00 or US$213,200.00 as assessed by the surveyor appointed by the Pontodamon’s owners’ insurers, East China Adjusters. These estimates were no more than the surveyors’ opinions and were estimates at best. There was no evidence from the He Da 98’s owners that repairs were indeed achievable at such lower costs. On the contrary, the Preliminary Damage Survey Report from CMTS dated 21/12/2007 furnished an estimate of US$400,000.00, lending some force to the argument that the actual repair costs paid to Longshan Shipyard was neither excessive nor well off the mark.
On the evidence, the Court found that the Pontodamon’s owners had acted entirely reasonably in having Pontodamon serviced as they did and that the amount paid for the permanent repairs was appropriate and wholly justified given the need to return the vessel as quickly as possible to charter service. That the Pontodamon’s owners had discharged their duty to mitigate there could be no question. Item 18 is accordingly recoverable in full.
The Pontodamon’s owners had confirmed the withdrawal of item 19.
Items 20 and 21 were claims relating to ferry charges and transportation charges, respectively in the amounts of US$408.16 and US$272.11. These necessary disbursements were to be paid by the He Da 98’s owners.
Agent’s charges paid to the Zhoushan Huanzhou Shipping Agency Ltd of US$1,346.94 for Pontodamon at Zhoushan pursued under item 22 were recoverable, representing necessary and reasonable expenditure flowing from the maritime accident. So too are the communication / sundry charges of CNY 1,100.00 or US$149.66 paid to the same agency under item 23.
Tonnage dues of US$600.00 under item 24 were also recoverable in full.
Item 25 concerned the Pontodamon’s owners’ claim for loss of hire consequent upon the collision. The amount sought was US$854,257.82.
The rationale behind such a claim was explained succinctly by Bowen LJ in the Argentino (1888) 13 P.D. 191, at pp. 201-202:
A collision at sea caused by the negligence of an offending vessel is a mere tort, and we have only therefore to consider what has been in the particular case its direct and natural consequence. This consequence (in the case of an innocent ship which is disabled by an accident) is that its owner loses for a time the use which he otherwise would have had of his vessel. There is no difference in principle between such a loss and the loss which the owner of a serviceable threshing-machine suffers from an injury which incapacitates the machine, or the loss which a workman suffers who is prevented from earning money by the wrongful detention of plant which cannot at once be replaced. A ship is a thing by the use of which money may be ordinarily earned, and the only question in case of a collision seems to me to be, what is the use which the shipowner would, but for the accident, have had of his ship, and what (excluding the element of uncertain and speculative and special profits) the shipowner, but for the accident, would have earned by the use of her. It is on this principle alone that it is habitual to allow in ordinary cases damages for the time during which the vessel is laid up under repair in addition to the cost of the repairs themselves. But this is merely an application of the general principle, and is not the measure in all cases of the loss. It might conceivably, upon the one hand, be the fact that the damaged ship would not and could not have earned anything at all while laid up for repairs, though such a case must necessarily be exceptional. In such circumstances nothing ought to be allowed for demurrage. Upon the other hand the direct consequence of the accident might be that the injured vessel was necessarily thrown out of her employment, not merely during the period of repair, but for a longer period still. In such a case the loss could not properly be measured by the time taken in repairs alone.
At the time of the collision, Pontodamon had just gone on time charter to Bunge SA. The charterparty stipulated a daily hire of US$75,000.00 and a minimum period of hire of 3 to 5 months. As a result of the collision, Pontodamon was laid up for permanent repairs and consequently was placed “off-hire” for a period of 11.98958 days. The Pontodamon’s owners accepted that a deduction for an address commission of 5% from the gross hire loss of US$899,218.75 was appropriate, producing a net loss of US$854,257.82 as claimed.
The He Da 98’s owners contended that damages for loss of hire were not recoverable unless it could be demonstrated that Pontodamon had Rightship approval, a condition under the time charterparty with Bunge SA. If the vessel lacked Rightship approval, the Pontodamon’s owners would have been in breach of the charterparty and Bunge SA would have had no obligation to pay any hire to the Pontodamon’s owners. Hence, no loss of hire would have been occasioned by the collision. This argument had been convincingly met by the email dated 23/11/2007, which clearly stated: “MV PONTODAMON … VESSEL RIGHTSHIP APPROVED AND OWNERS TO MAINTAIN SAID APPROVAL THROUGOUT THE DURATION OF THIS CP…” The owners had been requested to maintain such approval for the duration of the time charter and that was indeed the case.
The Court therefore awarded damages to the Plaintiff in the sum of US$854,257.82 under this head of claim.
Item 26 related to bunker / expenses consumed whilst Pontodamon was off-hire. The amount sought was US$27,031.48 as per the charterers’ email to the owners in which the charterers informed the owners that they would be deducting 47.2 metric tonnes of fuel oil at the charterparty price of US$560 per metric tonne as well as C/V/E (communications, victualling and entertainment) and commission adjustments from the next hire payment. The Court allowed this claim in full.
Item 27 was the usual claim for Agency at 1% on the established claims. The He Da 98’s owners accepted that this should be allowed.
Summary of awards
The items allowed were listed out as follow:
Item
Description
Amount awarded in US$
Costs incurred at Shanghai
1
Pilotage
6,974.56
2
Launch Hire
1,632.65
3
Tugs
27,030.00
4
Superintendence
14,381.08
5
Communication charges
30.18
6
Repatriation Costs
75.00
7
Agent’s Service/ Transportation Fee
75.00
8
Agent’s Fees
600.00
Costs incurred at Zhoushan
9
Pilotage
7,026.12
10
Berthing
167.35
11
Quarantine Fees
408.16
12
Tug/ Escorting Fees
5,582.59
14
Superintendent’s Transportation/Handing Fees
400.00
15
Shore Pass Fees
161.00
16
Class Survey Fees
6,522.00
17
Damages Survey Fees
34,704
18
Permanent Repairs
380,000.00
20
Ferry Charges
408.16
21
Transportation Charges
272.11
22
Agent’s Charges
1,346.94
23
Communication/ Sundry Charges
149.66
24
Tonnage Dues
600.00
25
Off-Hire
854,257.82
26
Bunkers/ Expenses Consumed During Off-Hire
27,031.48
Sub-Total
1,369,835.86
27
Agency (1%)
13,698.36
Total
1,383,534.22
The Pontodamon’s owners was accordingly entitled to damages of US$1,383,534.22. There should be interests thereon at judgment rate until full payment from the date of judgment. Additionally, the Pontodamon’s owners should also have its costs of the assessment of damages, taxed if not agreed, on party and party basis.
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
Discerning forwarders could quickly spot any profitable business opportunity as well as cost cutting instrument. Not all insurances are the same but some do greatly assist forwarder in solving the headacheing uncollected cargoes problem, better still with our involvement, for SMIC’s ability in helping forwarders making better use of their insurance is proven – SMIC forwarders are fortified by in depth transport legal knowledge truly essential for successful loss prevention. Such ability is not convincing without the test of time. Drop us a line for a try.
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.
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.
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.
Cargo Misdelivery The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 12/1/2016 refusing to grant a shipowner an anti-suit injunction because of the shipowner’s delay in applying for the anti-suit injunction. [HCMP 2399/2015] By an Originating Summons dated 25/9/2015 (“OS”), the owner of the vessel MV Zagora (“Vessel”) applied for an anti-suit injunction against a […]
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 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.
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.
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]
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 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]
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.
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 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 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]
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 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]
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 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]
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]
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]
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.
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]
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 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 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 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 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]
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]
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 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 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]
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]
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 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]
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]
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]
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 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]
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 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 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]
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]
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]
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]
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 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 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 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]
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 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]
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 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 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]
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 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]
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 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 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 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 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]
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.
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]
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.
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]
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 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 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 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]
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]
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].
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]
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]
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.
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 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]
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 [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).
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 District Court of Hong Kong issued a Judgment on 21/4/2011 dismissing a forwarder’s cargo indemnity claim of US$46,201.81 against a trucking company. [DCCJ 2092/2009]
The High Court of Hong Kong issued a Judgment on 3/2/2012 concerning which currency (US$ 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 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 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]
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]
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]
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.
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 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]
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 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]
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 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 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 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]
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]
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.
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 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]
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.
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.
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 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 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 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]
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.
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 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 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]
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 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 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]
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 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 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 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]
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]
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 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]
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]
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]
