(只有英文版本)
To: Transport Industry Operators
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 25/11/2009 holding a barge owner entitled to enjoy the tonnage limitation despite its entering into an Indemnity Agreement with a charterer to fully indemnify the charterer against all losses. (HCAJ 134/2009)
The barge owner chartered the barge “Wang Fat No. 3” to the charterer under a Hire Agreement dated 18/4/2009. In addition, on the same date, the barge owner entered into an Indemnity Agreement with the charterer. By that Indemnity Agreement, the barge owner contracted to indemnify the charterer against “all action, liability, loss suits, claims, demands, proceedings, costs, charges, or expenses whatsoever” and “[t]o pay [the charterer] on demand the full amount of any loss or damage whatsoever which [the charterer] may incur as a result of, in connection with or in any way related to the performance of the services”.
On 26/4/2009, as the barge was being towed outside Basalt Island, it rolled violently to about 45 degrees for about 2 minutes. Some containers fell off the barge into the sea and some containers remaining on the barge sustained loss and damage.
The barge owner sought a limitation decree under the 1976 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims. The Convention has force of law in Hong Kong by s.12 of the Merchant Shipping (Limitation of Shipowners’ Liability) Ordinance (Cap.343).
Apart from the charterer, no one objected to the barge owner being granted a limitation decree.
The charterer itself faced claims from parties whose cargo was lost or damaged as a result of the incident off Basalt Island. It was the charterer’s case that, under the Indemnity Agreement, the barge owner was obliged to indemnify the charterer against the full amount of claims for which the charterer might be held liable to third party cargo interests. Accordingly, the charterer contended that the barge owner should not be allowed to limit that full liability by being granted a limitation decree under the Convention.
The charterer submitted that, by entering into the Indemnity Agreement, the barge owner waived any benefit to which it might be entitled under the Convention. Article 1 of the Convention only says that shipowners “may” limit their liability for claims. Nothing prevents a shipowner from accepting a fuller liability than that provided for in the Convention.
In support of its contention, the charterer cited THE ‘SATANITA’ [1897] AC 59 (HL). There yacht-owners agreed to be liable for “all damages” arising from disobeying the rules of a club race. Yacht A sank Yacht B as a result of improper navigation not due to the fault or privity of the owner of Yacht A. The House of Lords held that, as matter of construction of the relevant agreements, the obligation to compensate for “all damages” meant that the owner of Yacht A was not entitled to limitation under the Merchant Shipping Amendment Act 1862. Lord Macnaghten stated (at 67): “[T]he expression ‘all damages arising therefrom’ means what it says, and … the generality of this expression is not to be cut down or restricted by anything outside the rules”. Similarly, absent express words to such effect, there was no scope (the charterer stressed) of reading the Indemnity Agreement as somehow “subject to the 1976 Convention”.
The Judge was not persuaded by the charterer’s argument.
The barge owner noted that, since THE ‘SATANITA’ was decided, limitation legislation has changed. For instance, in 1897 the relevant legislation required that claims sound in damages in order to qualify for limitation. Claims for an indemnity pursuant to a contract to indemnify would not have qualified for limitation. Now, however, by Art.2(2) of the Convention, except for certain specific types of claims identified in Arts. 2(1)(d)-(f), claims “shall be subject to limitation of liability even if brought … for indemnity under a contract”.
Thus, the Judge should construe the Indemnity Agreement in the context of Art.2(2) of the Convention. The existence of the Convention was part of the factual matrix. There was no evidence that the barge owner or the charterer (both experienced in the business of carrying goods by sea) would have been unaware of the provisions of the Convention.
When the parties entered into the Indemnity Agreement, they must be taken to have done so in the context of a shipowner (such as the barge owner) being able to apply for limitation under the Convention even in respect of a liability to indemnify. In the absence of clear words to the contrary, the Judge did not think that he could read the references to full indemnification in the Indemnity Agreement as meaning other than a full indemnity within the terms of what the Convention permitted.
The Judge added that such a conclusion did not operate unfairly against the charterer.
The charterer was itself entitled to apply for a limitation decree. Its liability (if any) to third parties would thereby be limited to the extent allowed by the Convention. Such limitation under the Convention would not exceed the barge owner’s liability under a limitation decree. There could then be no possibility of the quantum of the charterer’s liability to third parties being greater than the amount of the barge owner’s limited liability. There would be no “excess” which the charterer might have to bear on its own.
There was a further consideration. Any claim by the charterer against the barge owner for indemnification under the Indemnity Agreement would be subject to an obligation on the charterer’s part to take reasonable steps to mitigate loss. It seemed to the Judge that the charterer would thus be under an obligation to limit potential loss by itself seeking a limitation decree. Otherwise, its claims against the barge owner might be characterised as unreasonably greater than what they should otherwise have been.
For the above reasons, the Judge thought that the barge owner was entitled to a limitation decree.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or you would like to have a copy of the Judgment.
| Simon Chan | Richard Chan |
|---|---|
| Director | Director |
| E-mail: simonchan@smicsl.com | E-mail: richardchan@smicsl.com |
23/F, Excel Centre, 483A Castle Peak Road, Lai Chi Kok, Kowloon, Hong Kong
香港九龍荔枝角青山道483A卓匯中心23樓
Tel: 2299 5566 Fax: 2866 7096
E-mail: gm@smicsl.com Website: www.sun-mobility.com
A MEMBER OF THE HONG KONG CONFEDERATION OF INSURANCE BROKERS
香港保險顧問聯會會員
The robust freight industry in 2009 did not sustain well to the last quarter of 2010 as worldwide governments were not in unison in their fiscal policies. The worldwide government interference in 2011, such as the U.S. QEII, is likely to impact the worldwide movement of freight even more.
As uncertain as it was the economy in 2010, we believe the number of E&O, uncollected cargo and completion of carriage claims will continue the major concerns for transport operators in 2011. If you need a cost effective professional solution to defend claims against you, our claim team of five are ready to assist. Feel free to call Carrie Chung / George Cheung at 2299 5539 / 2299 5533.
您可能也感兴趣…
Chans Advice 248 – US vs Singapore jurisdictions
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]
Chans Advice 193 – Hague Rules v Hague Visby Rules (II)
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]
Chans Advice 234 – Sanchi c/w CF Crystal (VI)
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]
Chans Advice 150 – Ship collision damages
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 10/12/2012 dealing with a collision between two vessels off Shanghai. [HCAJ 218/2009]
Chans Advice 180 – LOI – specific performance
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]
Chans Advice 194 – Uncollected Cargo & Conversion
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]
Chans Advice 251 – HKD 386 million theft
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]
Chans Advice 266 – Suit in HVR
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)]
Chans Advice 163 – Hague Rules v Hague Visby Rules
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]
Chans Advice 256 – Ship collision – security for costs
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]
Chans Advice 128 – BL jurisdiction clause
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 3/8/2011 holding that a Korean shipping company could not rely on its Bill of Lading’s Korean jurisdiction clause to stay a Hong Kong legal action. [HCCL 13/2010]
Chans Advice 212 – 2 lawyers for 1 party
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]
Chans Advice 139 – Abuse of process & Want of prosecution
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]
Chans Advice 267 – Warehouse fire under PRC Maritime Code
In the Shanghai Maritime Court’s Judgment dated 25 August 2005, the court explained how the PRC Maritime Code dealt with the liability of carriers for cargo loss and damage in warehouse fires. [(2005)沪海法商初字第249 号]
Chans Advice 214 – Wasted costs
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]
Chans Advice 265 – Costs on indemnity basis
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]
Chans Advice 166 – Cargo insurance’s warranty
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]
Chans Advice 167 – In rem jurisdiction
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]
Chans Advice 254 – Lifting corporate veil
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]
Chans Advice 146 – Cargo misdelivery summary Judgment (III)
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]
Chans Advice 190 – Assignment vis-à vis cargo misdelivery
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]
Chans Advice 181 – Cargo misdelivery – anti suit injunction
Cargo Misdelivery The Hong Kong High Court issued a Jud […]
Chans Advice 178 – Arrested ship’s sale proceeds
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]
Chans Advice 165 – Air cargo misdelivery
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]
Chans Advice 183 – SMIC on Facebook
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.
Chans Advice 207 – Indemnity claims vis-à-vis in rem proceedings
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]
Chans Advice 129 – Refusal to release cargoes w/o B/L
The Hong Kong District Court issued a Judgment on 8/2/2011 holding a Hong Kong forwarder liable for its refusing to release the cargoes to a consignee without production of the original straight Bill of Lading. [DCCJ 3467/2009]
Chans Advice 231 – Cargo claim handling for forwarders
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.
Chans Advice 154 – Mareva injunction
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]
Chans Advice 243 – Worldwide Mareva injunction
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]
Chans Advice 177 – In rem jurisdiction (II)
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]
Chans Advice 232 – Uncollected cargoes
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.
Chans Advice 189 – Air cargo misdelivery (II)
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]
Chans Advice 155 – Writ’s validity
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]
Chans Advice 263 – Montreal Convention – 26 SDRs/kg
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).
Chans Advice 262 – Undisclosed principal
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]
Chans Advice 204 – Bunker dispute
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]
Chans Advice 140 – Road haulage cargo theft
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]
Chans Advice 136 – Container demurrage
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.
Chans Advice 135 – Vessel sharing agreement
The High Court of Hong Kong issued a Judgment on 2/12/2011 concerning a vessel sharing agreement. [HCAJ 138/2008]
Chans Advice 253 – Transfer of business & Lifting corporate veil
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]
Chans Advice 250 – Sanchi cw CF Crystal (VII)
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]
Chans Advice 249 – Well founded claims
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]
Chans Advice 152 – Laytime & Demurrage
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]
Chans Advice 7 – Liability Insurance Revisited
The relative risk distribution of a typical transport operator is represented by the chart below:-
Chans Advice 124 – Change B/L’s consignee
The English High Court issued a Judgment on 26/2/2010 holding that a shipping company could follow the shipper’s instructions to change the consignee and the destination in its bill of lading and that the original consignee became having no title to sue. (2010 WL 606031)
Chans Advice 211 – Relief against unless order
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]
Chans Advice 220 – Bunker dispute
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]
Chans Advice 257 – HKD 386 million theft (III)
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]
Chans Advice 137 – Ship arrest
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]
Chans Advice 240 – Wreck removal
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]
Chans Advice 125 – BIFA STC – set off & time bar
The English Court of Appeal issued a Judgment on 20/1/2011 holding two clauses in the standard trading conditions of the British International Freight Association valid. One of them was about all sums due to the forwarder to be paid without reduction or deferment on account of any claim, counterclaim or set-off. The other was about the 9-month suit time limit. [2011] All ER (D) 128 (Jan); [2011] EWCA Civ 18
Chans Advice 157 – Ship sinking – security for costs
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]
Chans Advice 208 – BVI or Malta?
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]
Chans Advice 195 – Forwarder’s Standard Trading Conditions
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].
Chans Advice 151 – B/L’s fraudulent representation
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)]
Chans Advice 153 – Wrongful ship arrest
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 13/1/2012 setting aside the arrest of a ship “JIMRISE” (the “Vessel”). [HCAJ 180/2011]
Chans Advice 245 – Forum shopping
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]
Chans Advice 141 – Wrongful arrest
The High Court of Hong Kong on 26/8/2011 issued a Judgment about wrongful arrest of a vessel. [HCAJ 105/2011]
Chans Advice 132 – Hague Visby Rules Article III paragraph 6 bis
The English Court of Appeal gave a Judgment on 6/7/1987 explaining how to calculate the suit time limit for the indemnity claim under the Hague Visby Rules. ([1987] 1 W.L.R. 1213)
Chans Advice 230 – What’s FCR
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.
Chans Advice 199 – District Court’s jurisdiction
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]
Chans Advice 225 – HAWB
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.
Chans Advice 229 – PRC Maritime Code
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.
Chans Advice 255 – Chapter 46 Foreign Judgments (Restriction on Recognition and Enforcement) Ordinance
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.
Chans Advice 216 – Double Collisions (II)
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).
Chans Advice 187 – VGM – HK laws
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:
Chans Advice 217 – Wasted costs (II)
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]
Chans Advice 242 – 3-year Time bar
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]
Chans Advice 171 – Anti-suit injunction (III)
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]
Chans Advice 164 – Financing NVOCC deposit in PRC
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.
Chans Advice 138 – Which ship to blame?
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]
Chans Advice 126 – 2 sets HAWBs for 1 lot cargoes
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 27/5/2011 in relation to an air shipment that a forwarder issued two sets of its House Air Waybills to two different parties for one lot of cargoes. [HCCL 117/1994]
Chans Advice 184 – Breaking tonnage limitation
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]
Chans Advice 210 – HK or Yangon? (II)
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]
Chans Advice 237 – Cargo misdelivery and arbitration clause
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]
Chans Advice 201 – Double Collisions
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]
Chans Advice 123 – LOI | Cargo release w/o B/L
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 11/8/2009 holding a shipping company could rely on two letters of indemnity to seek compensation of US$253,655.50 from a forwarder and a trading company in a case of cargo release without production of original bills of lading. [HCA 208/2008]
Chans Advice 148 – Why Chans Advice, What Chans Advice, and the SMIC New Website
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.
Chans Advice 264 – Straight B/L v Order B/L
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$89,838.
Chans Advice 134 – Which currency to claim?
The High Court of Hong Kong issued a Judgment on 3/2/2012 concerning which currency (US$ 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]
Chans Advice 227 – Montreal Convention
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:
Chans Advice 172 – MOL Comfort Comforts No Forwarder
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.
Chans Advice 259 – Aircraft on fire
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]
Chans Advice 209 – HK or Yangon?
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]
Chans Advice 161 – Extending validity of writ
The Hong Kong High Court issued a judgment on 27/2/2014 explaining the legal principles in respect of extending the validity of writs. [HCAJ 24/2012]
Chans Advice 197 – Uncollected cargoes – stay of proceedings
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]
Chans Advice 261 – Seminar (28 May 2024) Q&A Part 2
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.
Chans Advice 130 – Refusal to release cargoes w/o B/L (II)
Remember our last issue Chans advice/129 that the forwarder was held liable for its refusing to release the goods to the named consignee without original straight Bill of Lading? On 12/8/2011, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal issued a Judgment dismissing the forwarder’s application for leave to appeal. [HCMP 683/2011]
Chans Advice 223 – Sanchi c/w CF Crystal (V)
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]
Chans Advice 196 – Uncollected cargoes – interrogatories
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]
Chans Advice 144 – Uncollected cargoes Seminar 2012 – Q & A
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.
Chans Advice 213 – Container demurrage – time bar
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]
Chans Advice 233 – Forwarder’s STC
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.
Chans Advice 218 – Sanchi c/w CF Crystal (II)
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]
Chans Advice 260 – Seminar (28 May 2024) Q&A Part 1
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.
Chans Advice 169 – Anti-suit injunction
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]
Chans Advice 206 – Fraud vis-à-vis summary judgment (II)
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]
Chans Advice 156 – Unless order
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]
Chans Advice 236 – Sale of ship by court (II)
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]
Chans Advice 122 – Lien
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 9/2/2010 holding a carrier entitled to rely on its bill of lading clause to lien the cargoes for the damages, costs, expenses, charges resulting from the shipper’s overloading the cargoes in the containers. [HCA 1579/2008]
Chans Advice 160 – Carrier’s claims against shipper
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]
Chans Advice 246 – Nominal damages II
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]
Chans Advice 258 – HKD 386 million theft (IV)
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]
Chans Advice 247 – Abuse of process
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]
Chans Advice 127 – COGSA package limitation
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 7/6/2011 explaining the concept of the package limitation of the United States Carriage of Goods by Sea Act. [HCAJ 181/2008]
Chans Advice 158 – Yacht sinking – security for costs
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]
Chans Advice 176 – Formula milk powder forfeiture
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]
Chans Advice 203 – As agent for the Carrier? (II)
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]
Chans Advice 174 – Sister ship arrest
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 3/6/2015 to deal with a case concerning a sister ship’s arrest. [HCAJ 44/2014]
Chans Advice 162 – Cargo misdelivery v O/S freight charges
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]
Chans Advice 173 – Anti-suit injunction (IV)
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]
Chans Advice 241 – Interpleader
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]
Chans Advice 222 – Security for costs of appeal
The Hong Kong Court of Appeal issued a Decision on 28 January 2019 dealing with some principles for security for costs. [CACV376/2018, 2019HKCA133]
Chans Advice 143 – Security for costs
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]
Chans Advice 159 – Forklift truck’s 3rd party insurance?
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.
Chans Advice 198 – Tonnage limitation vis-a-vis collision
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]
Chans Advice 224 – BVI or Malta? (II)
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]
Chans Advice 14 – As agent for the Carrier?
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.
Chans Advice 145 – Cargo misdelivery summary Judgment (II)
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]
Chans Advice 200 – 200 Loss Prevention Ideas
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.
Chans Advice 191 – Fraud vis-à vis summary judgment
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]
Chans Advice 185 – VGM 1 July 2016
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.
Chans Advice 235 – Sale of ship by court
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]
Chans Advice 239 – Small Claims Tribunal
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]
Chans Advice 168 – Mareva injunction – cargo misdelivery
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]
Chans Advice 226 – HB/L
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.
Chans Advice 121 – C/P penalty clause
The English Court of Appeal issued a Judgment on 31/7/2009 holding a charterparty clause (concerning late redelivery) as a penalty clause and thereby unenforceable. [2009] EWCA Civ 855;[2009] All ER (D) 35 (Aug)
Chans Advice 170 – Anti-suit injunction (II)
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.
Chans Advice 119 – Q & A Cargo misdelivery without B/L Court of Final Appeal’s approach Seminar 3 November 2010
The Court of Final Appeal landmark case on delivery of cargo without bills of lading has set off the alarm bell that bills of lading terms must be reviewed before it is too late.
Chans Advice 188 – MOL Comfort – PRC Judgment
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.
Chans Advice 179 – London arbitration’s anti-suit injunction
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]
Chans Advice 186 – Cargo loss summary judgment
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]
Chans Advice 205 – Inter-Club Agreement
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]
Chans Advice 182 – Delay in appeal
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]
Chans Advice 244 – Nominal damages
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]
Chans Advice 215 – Sanchi c/w CF Crystal
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]
Chans Advice 149 – Terminal cargo misdelivery (III)
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]
Chans Advice 221 – Sanchi c/w CF Crystal (IV)
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]
Chans Advice 219 – Sanchi c/w CF Crystal (III)
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]
Chans Advice 133 – Which law to apply?
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]
Chans Advice 142 – Cargo misdelivery summary Judgment
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]
Chans Advice 147 – Which ship to blame? (II)
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]
Chans Advice 202 – Dissipation of assets
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]
Chans Advice 252 – HKD 386 million theft (II)
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]
Chans Advice 192 – Anti-suit injunction (VI)
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]
Chans Advice 131 – Forwarders’ Standard Trading Conditions Seminar | 9 November 2011 – Q & A
The 10th annual SMIC seminar on Forwarders’ Standard Trading Conditions wrapped a decade of unabated effort hammering for the freight industry’s attention to loss prevention by proper freight documents. The topic had attracted over 300 participants to attentively listening for 3 hours in the YMCA Assembly Hall. We thank them all for the patience.
Chans Advice 228 – Hague Visby Rules
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.
Chans Advice 238 – Air shipment without authority?
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]
Chans Advice 175 – Anti-suit injunction (V)
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]