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 background
On 7 November 2013, a collision at sea occurred between two vessels, The Eleni owned by Eleni Maritime Limited (“Eleni Maritime”) and The Heung-A Dragon owned by Heung-A Shipping Co Ltd (“Heung-A Shipping”) off Phu My in Vietnam. As a result, The Heung-A Dragon with all its cargo on board sank.
In respect of the sinking of The Heung-A Dragon, Eleni Maritime admitted liability. Attribution of blame for the collision was agreed at 70:30. Then, Eleni Maritime initiated limitation action in the action in question against Heung-A Shipping and three other potential claimants (ie the 1st to 4th Defendants) under Order 75 of the Rules of the High Court, seeking to limit its liability in the collision. On 14 May 2014, Ng J granted a limitation decree (the “Decree”) including, inter alia, the following terms:
that the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976 (the “Limitation Convention”) has the force of law in Hong Kong;
that the tonnage of The Eleni for the purpose of this action was 23,494 tons;
that the liability of Eleni Maritime was limited to 4,006,998 Special Drawing Rights;
that claims against Eleni Maritime in respect of the collision should be filed within a period of 6 months and 14 days from the date of the Decree; and
that Eleni Maritime to advertise a notice specifying the particulars of the Decree once in each of Lloyd’s List, South China Morning Post and the Hong Kong Standard.
On 21 May 2014, Eleni Maritime constituted the limitation fund (the “Fund”) by making payment into court.
The date for filing of claims under the Decree was initially 28 November 2014, but was extended on two occasions to 28 January 2015. This final deadline was nearly a year before the expiry of the two-year limitation period under section 7(1) of Merchant Shipping (Collision Damage Liability and Salvage) Ordinance, Cap 508 (“the Ordinance”) for claiming damages arising out of collision at sea.
In mid 2015, well after the expiry of the final deadline but about six months before the expiry of the two-year limitation period, solicitors for the 2nd to 4th Defendants (E-One Garment, Peninsula Merchandising, Faratronic), Smyth & Co, received initial instructions from some 22 additional claimants in respect of a further round of claims against Eleni Maritime. Since July 2015, Smyth & Co was communicating with solicitors for Eleni Maritime and Heung-A Shipping about late filing of claims by the additional claimants against the Fund. Eleni Maritime maintained a neutral stance, but Heung-A Shipping objected. Instead of seeking an extension of time for filing of claims under the Decree or to have the Decree set aside, Smyth & Co filed a writ of action in HCA 135/2015 on 6 November 2015, against Eleni Shipping on behalf of the 2nd to 4th Defendants and the additional claimants just before the expiry of the limitation period. Eleni Shipping acknowledged service of the writ and submitted to jurisdiction.
The progress in respect of claims under the Fund was slow due to various complications, including the fact that there remained an issue to be resolved as to wreck removal and that other actions were commenced against The Eleni by other claimants in India and the Marshall Islands. No distribution from the Fund was made and there was no immediate prospect of distribution.
The application
On 14 October 2016, Smyth & Co issued the summons in question seeking an extension of the deadline under the Decree for the 2nd to 4th Defendants and the additional claimants to file claims against the Fund. Eleni Maritime took a neutral stance but Heung-A Shipping objected.
The basis of the additional claimants’ application was that they had commenced writ actions within the limitation period which were perfectly valid and might be pursued against Eleni Maritime who had submitted to jurisdiction. There was no provision in the Decree prohibiting or staying other actions against Eleni Maritime. The additional claimants and their insurers had no knowledge of the Decree and constitution of the Fund until long after the deadline fixed under the Decree had expired. They had already issued a protective writ within the limitation period. In any event, the deadline fixed by court was an administrative deadline, which the court has discretion to extend. The court had no power to reduce the two-year statutory limitation period. The Fund was still in its early stages of administration and no distribution was made. Granting the extension would not create any prejudice to anybody. Hence, in all circumstances the extension ought to be granted.
The thrust of the argument of Heung-A Shipping, in opposition to the application was that regardless of the filing of the writs, the additional claimants’ claim against the Fund was statute-barred as they had not filed their claims against the Fund in the limitation action within the time limit under section 7(1) of the Ordinance. Filing of a writ was not sufficient to have preserved time for the purposes of claims against the Fund. As a competing claimant against the Fund, Heung-A Shipping was entitled to rely on this time-bar defence available to Eleni Maritime to defeat the claims of the additional claimants against the Fund. Simply put, Heung-A Shipping’s proposition was that the statutory time-bar applied to each and every action taken to enforce the same claim or cause of action. Heung-A Shipping’s subsidiary arguments were that the writ actions commenced by the additional claimants constituted an abuse of process and could not be relied on by them for protecting time; and that no good reason had been advanced in support of an application for extension of time.
The statutory claim regime in Hong Kong
The issues raised in the application in question were the true construction of section 7 of the Ordinance and the inter-relationship between that statutory time limit and the time limit fixed by the court in the limitation decree. These issues could only be resolved against the backdrop of the statutory claim regime under Hong Kong law.
The Limitation Convention, which was given the force of law in Hong Kong by the Merchant Shipping (Limitation of Shipowners Liability) Ordinance, Cap 434, provides for a simple and practical regime for disposing of claims arising from collision at sea, which is acceptable to the shipping industry and beneficial to the parties in a collision. Litigations arising from collision at sea take a long time to resolve. Under the regime, shipowners get the benefit of limitation of their liability and have their vessels released on payment of a security calculated according to their tonnage so that the vessels may be sailed out of port to continue with their ordinary commercial activities. On the other hand, claimants get the benefit of a security in court. Section 7 of the Ordinance provides for a limitation period of two years for making claims arising out of collision at sea. Order 75 provides the relevant procedures. The regime is available to the shipowner who does not dispute liability but wishes to take advantage of the limitation of liability under the regime. The regime consists of a two stage process: first, the limitation action in which the shipowner seeks to limit his liability; and second, the reference action in which claims against that shipowner are processed upon the approval of his limitation application and constitution of the limitation fund. Once the fund is constituted, the shipowner ceases to have any interest in disputing anybody’s claim because he is liable only for the amount he has paid in, and that being so all competing claimants to the fund are entitled to dispute one another’s claims against the fund. It is similar to the interpleader proceeding in which the interpleader brings the claimants to court and leaves it to them to resolve their rights over the subject matter of the interpleader. It is for the shipowner to commence the limitation action so that he may limit his liability and have his vessel released upon constituting the fund. If he does not invoke the regime, the claimants would have to proceed by way of the usual writ action.
Rules 37 to 40 are described in their headings as “limitation action”. They provide for the making of a decree limiting the shipowner’s liability or the refusal to make a decree. Rule 37 identifies the parties. The shipowner who is the person liable to claims for damages is identified as “the plaintiff” and claimants or potential claimants with claims against the shipowner are identified as “the defendants”. Under this rule, the plaintiff shipowner issues a writ to the defendants to seek the relief of limiting his liability. Rule 38 sets out the procedure to be followed after issue and service of the writ. It requires the shipowner to take out a summons supported by affidavit proving his case and stating the names of all the persons who to his knowledge have claims against him arising out of the collision. It provides for the hearing before the registrar. If the defendants dispute the shipowner’s right to limit his liability, the registrar will give further directions for the conduct of the hearing of the summons. If the right to limitation of liability is not disputed, the registrar will issue a decree limiting the shipowner’s liability and fix the amount to which that liability is to be limited. Rule 39 provides for the fixing of a time within which claimants may file their claims and for advertisement of the decree if so ordered. This step concludes the limitation action, if no action is taken to have the decree set aside pursuant to rule 40. Rule 40 provides for setting aside of the decree by any person who has a claim against the shipowner but was not named by his name in the writ as a defendant or who was named but was not served with the writ or has not acknowledged the issue thereof.
Thus a limitation action is an application by the shipowner to limit his liability in an action or actions arising out of collision at sea. The only issue before the registrar in a limitation action is whether the shipowner has the right to limit his liability. According to article 4 of the Limitation Convention, that issue, if disputed, is whether it is proved that the loss resulted from the shipowner’s personal act or omission, committed with the intent to cause loss, or recklessly and with knowledge that such loss would probably result. The claimants’ entitlement to claim is not an issue. The limitation action may be commenced by the shipowner at any time, even after expiry of the limitation period under the Ordinance for commencing actions by claimants. It is not an action in which the claimants sue the shipowner for damages caused by the collision. There is no issue about time bar, let alone one applicable to the claimants. The limitation action begins with issue of a writ by the shipowner and concludes with the granting of or refusal to grant a limitation decree.
Rules 41 to 46 set out the procedures for dealing with claims filed pursuant to the decree. This part of the proceeding is described in the rules as “references to the registrar”. It is akin to a writ action. The rules provide for filing of claims and defence, hearing before a judge, drawing up and entry of judgment and orders and inspection of documents filed in the registry. In some authorities, this part of the proceeding is referred to as “limitation reference” or “reference”. Heung-A Shipping made no distinction between the limitation action and the reference and treated both proceedings as part of the limitation action. The Judge preferred to refer to the proceeding under rules 37 to 40 as the limitation action and that under rules 41 to 46 as the reference or reference to the registrar or reference action. The former commences with the issue of the writ and concludes with the making or refusal to make a decree. The latter commences with the making of reference to the registrar and concludes with adjudication.
The true construction of section 7(1) of the Ordinance
The core issue raised by the application in question was the true and proper construction of section 7(1) of the Ordinance. This sub-section requires that an action to enforce a claim or lien must be commenced within two years. Heung-A Shipping submitted that the word “action” did not necessarily mean that a claimant must issue a writ. Heung-A Shipping argued that the word was equally competent to include the filing of a claim in a limitation reference as contemplated by Order 75 rule 41.
Sub-section 7(1) provides as follows: “Subject to subsection (3), no action shall be maintainable to enforce any claim or lien against a vessel or its owners in respect of any damage or loss to another vessel, its cargo or freight, or any property on board the vessel, or damages for loss of life or personal injuries suffered by any person on board the vessel, caused by the fault of the former vessel, whether such vessel is wholly or partly in fault, unless proceedings in the action are commenced within 2 years from the date when the damage, loss or injury was caused.”
It was Heung-A Shipping’s argument that the word “action” was equally competent to include the filing of a claim in a limitation reference as contemplated by Order 75, rule 41, which is the proceeding in which the claim arising from collision damage is to be enforced. However, the word “action” must be read subject to the qualification which followed. It must therefore be an action to enforce any claim or lien against a vessel or its owners. But upon constitution of the limitation fund, the maritime lien for collision damage ceases to run with the ship. The Judge agreed with that proposition which was based on article 13(1) of the Limitation Convention. That is how the regime operates. With constitution of the fund, the vessel arrested is released. The lien ceases to exist. The limitation reference, which the additional claimants sought to participate, was therefore not an action to enforce any claim or lien against a vessel or its owners. It was an action against the Fund, although that action arose out of the wrongful act of the vessel or its owners. In the Judge’s view, a fair reading of section 7(1) did not support Heung-A Shipping’s construction. The limitation period did not apply to an action commenced against the limitation fund. The time-bar applied to an action to enforce a claim or lien against a vessel or its owners. It did not apply to an action against the fund.
The limitation period fixed by section 7(1) is statutory and section 7(3) gives the court discretion to extend that period to such extent and on such conditions as it thinks fit. With these in mind, the Judge would approach the issue as follows. The deadline fixed in the decree for filing of claim was one fixed by the court in the exercise of its case management powers for the better and proper conduct of the claims and administration of the fund. It was a procedural time limit or “administrative deadline”. No court would, when imposing such an administrative deadline, contemplate that it should have the effect of overriding the limitation period fixed by law, thereby rendering the defence of time-bar unavailable to a defendant. It must necessarily follow from the above that the very fact that the administrative deadline expired before expiry of the statutory limitation period alone was a good reason for granting extension of time under the decree.
If a claimant had commenced action against the shipowner within the statutory time limit and filed his claim in the reference within the administrative deadline, there was no defence of limitation available to the shipowner which the other claimants could rely on. The claimant was entitled to have his claim processed as of right.
If a claimant had commenced action against the shipowner within time but filed his claim in the reference after the expiry of the administrative deadline, leave to extend the administrative deadline under the decree was required. As the other claimants could not avail themselves of the shipowner’s defence of limitation and as the administrative deadline was procedural, subject to showing good reasons for the delay and lack of prejudice to other claimants, leave to extend the administrative deadline would invariably be granted.
If a claimant had not commenced action against the shipowner within the statutory limitation period or at all, but his claim in the reference had been filed within the administrative deadline, the other claimants can rely on the defence of limitation available to the shipowner to defeat that claimant’s claim. That claimant’s claim in the reference would be shut out by the registrar. He had to invoke the court’s discretion under section 7(3) of the Ordinance to extend the time limit for commencing action against the shipowner on proof of good reason for his inaction and absence of prejudice to the other claimants. The threshold was higher than that facing the claimant in the scenario described in the preceding paragraph.
If a claimant had not commenced action against the shipowner within time or at all and his claim in the reference had been filed after expiry of the administrative deadline, the defence of limitation would be available to the other claimants. His position would be the similar to that of the claimant in the preceding paragraph, except that he had to obtain court’s leave to, first, extend the time for filing claim under the administrative deadline and, second, to extend the time limit under section 7(3) of the Ordinance. The threshold was much higher than that facing the claimant in the preceding paragraph.
Abuse of process in filing the writs
Relying on article 13 of the Limitation Convention, Heung-A Shipping argued that if the additional claimants were granted extension of time to claim against the Fund, they would be barred from claiming against any other property of Eleni Maritime under the writ action already filed. Heung-A Shipping emphasised the fact that these additional claimants had not arrested any property of Eleni Maritime and argued that if they sought to arrest The Eleni within the jurisdiction of Hong Kong Court, the Hong Kong Court would be obliged to release the vessel pursuant to article 13(2) of the Limitation Convention. Heung-A Shipping therefore submitted that these considerations highlighted the fact that the in rem proceedings issued by the additional claimants one day before the statutory limitation period expired were not intended to be used for the purpose of enforcing their claims. The proceedings therefore constituted an abuse of process and could not be relied upon as protecting time.
However, this article did not protect The Eleni from arrest if judgment had been obtained and a warrant of arrest executed on her when she happened to be at a port of a contracting state to the Limitation Convention other than Hong Kong or any of the other three locations set out in article 13(2). The additional claimants made it abundantly clear that their intention was to forgo their remedy in rem by commencing the reference and to allow themselves to be caught by article 13(1), so that they might participate in the Fund. There were obvious benefits for them to opt to pursue against the Fund, such as time, costs and security. Though the likelihood of their obtaining the remedy in rem by the writ actions appeared remote, the inference that these additional claimants had no intention to pursue the remedy in rem if it became not open to them to pursue against the Fund was not a reasonable inference that could be drawn. The Judge was not satisfied that the writ actions commenced by the additional claimants constituted abuse of process of the court.
Good reasons for allowing extension of time
The additional claimants were cargo owners or subrogated insurers entitled to sue in respect of the cargos on board The Heung-A Dragon. They only came to know about the Fund long after the administrative deadline had expired. While Heung-A Shipping forcefully argued that as participants in the shipping industry, these subrogated insurers should have read the Lloyd’s List and become aware of the Fund, in the Judge’s view, Heung‑A Shipping and Eleni Maritime were more to blame for not doing what was reasonably expected of them. Despite Heung-A Shipping as cargo carrier carrying the additional claimants’ cargo which it had failed to deliver, it took no steps to inform the additional claimants identified on their bills of lading and cargo manifest about the constitution of the Fund. Eleni Maritime as the plaintiff in a limitation action was duty-bound under Order 38 to bring the limitation action to the notice of the consignees of goods on board The Heung-A Dragon and therefore these additional claimants. It must also be obvious to both Heung‑A Shipping and Eleni Maritime that many of the consignees of and persons interested in the cargo on board The Heung-A Dragon were located in the PRC and Vietnam. Yet, for reasons unknown, when seeking the Decree, no direction was sought to advertise the Decree in the PRC or Vietnam. The Decree was only advertised in two newspapers in Hong Kong and in the Lloyd’s List.
While much had been said by Heung-A Shipping against the additional claimants for not making this application earlier, having regard to all the circumstances, it made no difference to Eleni Maritime, Heung-A Shipping or indeed anyone that the application was only made at this stage as the lateness did not even start to affect the administration of the Fund.
Though the additional claimants were late in filing their claims pursuant to the administrative deadline, the collision and their claims were not unknown to Heung‑A Shipping and Eleni Maritime. In fact, Smyth & Co had informed them of the additional claimants’ claims since July 2015. The parties had been communicating on this subject since. There could be no prejudice to Eleni Maritime as its liability was capped. No distribution was made by the Fund. Other than a possibility of dilution of the distribution from the Fund, Heung-A Shipping would suffer no loss as a result of the late filing of these additional claims. Such dilution cannot in law amount to prejudice. Eleni Maritime and Heung‑A Shipping, in particular, should not be allowed to benefit from their omission, at the expense of the innocent additional claimants.
All these circumstances constituted good and sufficient reason for the court to exercise its discretion under Order 3 and its inherent jurisdiction to extend the administrative deadline in the Decree.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Judge gave the additional claimants leave to file their claims in the reference to the registrar out of time and ordered that they should file and serve further particulars of their claims on Eleni Maritime and every other Defendants within 14 days of the date of the Decision.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or you would like to have a copy of the Decision given by the Judge.
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 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).
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.
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 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 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 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]
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 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 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]
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 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 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 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]
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 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]
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 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 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]
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:
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]
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 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 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]
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]
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 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 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 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 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]
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 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.
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]
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/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 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]
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 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]
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.
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 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]
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 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 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 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]
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]
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 ruling on 2/12/2016 dealing with a shipowner’s interrogatory application in relation to an uncollected cargo case. [HCAJ 118/2015]
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.
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 […]
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]
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 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 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 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]
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]
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]
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 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 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 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]
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 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 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]
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]
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 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 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 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 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 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]
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.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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]
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 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 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 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]
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 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 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]
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.
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]
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 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 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]
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]
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.
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]
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.
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 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]
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.
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]
