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]
On 30/11/2007 the vessel “Pontodamon” and the vessel “He Da” collided at around 2125 hours in the port area of Shanghai. At the time the sky was overcast, but visibility was good for some 12 nautical miles. The sea was slight to moderate and there was a force 3 or 4 wind blowing in a north-easterly direction. The Pontodamon is a gearless, Panamax-sized bulk carrier of 38,684 gross tonnes. She is powered by a single diesel engine and has a single screw propeller with rudder. She is 224.95 metres in length with a beam of 32.24 metres. At the relevant time, she was in the course of leaving Shanghai port. She was in ballast, with drafts of 4.82 metres forward and 7.23 metres aft. The He Da (now named Lucky Nine) is a general cargo vessel of 4,083 gross tonnes. She is powered by 2 diesel engines. She has a twin screw propeller and rudder. She is 98.5 metres in length with a beam of 16.8 metres. At the relevant time, she was laden with a cargo of steel coils. She had drafts of 5.3 metres forward and 6.1 metres aft. As a vessel, the He Da was more maneuverable than the Pontodamon.
The evidence before the Court included 7 screen shots from the Shanghai Vessel Traffic Service (VTS). Both vessels’ coordinates as shown on the VTS information derived from the AIS transmissions of the 2 ships between about 2115 and 2124. The VTS information indicated that, in the 10 minutes before the accident, the Pontodamon was in the No.2 anchorage to the south of the B2 traffic lane of the Shanghai port area and heading roughly eastward. The VTS information also suggested that the Pontodamon was drifting gently southwards, as it was heading east, in the direction of Shanghai port’s C2 traffic lane. The Pontodamon was proceeding at a speed of about 16 knots. In relation to the He Da, the VTS information indicated that the vessel was heading in a south-westerly direction just skirting the edge of the C2 traffic lane. The He Da was proceeding at a speed of between 6 to 7 knots.
Had both vessels proceeded along the directions and at the speeds just mentioned, there would have been no collision. The vessels would simply have passed very close to each other (i.e. within a clearance of about 5 cables). But both vessels altered course in the minute or so before the collision. At around 2123 the Pontodamon turned 10 degrees to port. According to her master (Captain Zakkour) this was done, on the assumption that the He Da would be continuing along its heading at the same speed, so that there would be a greater clearance between the 2 vessels when they passed. Unfortunately, at almost the same time as the Pontodamon turned to port, the He Da turned to starboard. This was done, according to the latter’s master (Captain Ma), to avoid hitting the Pontodamon on the assumption that ship would continue proceeding as she had been.
The collision occurred when the He Da’s port bow made contact with the Pontodamon’s starboard side shell plating. Both vessels were then oriented in a roughly northern heading with an angle of about 45 degrees between them.
Both parties alleged that, immediately before the accident, they each tried to contact the other repeatedly through the use of VHF, Aldis lamp, and whistle signals. Both parties claimed that their attempts at communication were in vain and that the other side failed to respond.
Captain Zakkour said that he decided to turn 10 degrees to port after he saw the He Da crossing the Pontodamon’s bow. When he gave the order to turn to port, 25% of the He Da had crossed the Pontodamon’s bow. Having given the order to turn to port, Captain Zakkour went to the starboard side of the bridge to observe the Pontodamon passing the He Da. He expected that the He Da would be continuing along her course. But to his surprise, the He Da suddenly turned to starboard. Captain Zakkour then caused the Pontodamon to veer more sharply to port in an effort to avoid collision.
Captain Ma denied that the He Da had crossed the Pontodamon’s bow before the He Da started to turn to starboard. When he then observed the Pontodamon suddenly turning to port, Captain Ma said that he stopped the He Da’s engines and went full astern. Captain Ma further stated that “at about 2115” he was called from his cabin by the He Da’s Third Officer. The Third Officer informed Captain Ma that there was a vessel heading towards the He Da. Having joined the Third Officer on the bridge, Captain Ma asked the Third Officer what action the latter recommended. The Third Officer suggested turning 10 degrees starboard to avoid collision. Captain Ma thereupon ordered the Third Officer to turn 10 degrees starboard “immediately”.
The parties accepted that the VTS information provided the best evidence of the positions of the 2 ships as well as their courses and speeds in the minutes before the collision. But both parties cautioned against the Court treating the VTS information as absolutely accurate and definitive. This is because the plots obtained from the VTS information, even if done with the sophisticated software available today, will inevitably still be subject to margins of error.
The plots derived from the VTS information did not absolve the Judge from evaluating the credibility of the oral evidence from both masters of the circumstances of the collision. Nonetheless, the VTS information could assist the Judge as a touchstone against which to test the reliability of the witness evidence which the Judge had heard.
The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (COLREGS) (as promulgated in Cap.369N) govern the manner in which vessels should navigate to avoid collisions. In COLREGS terms, the Pontodamon was the “stand-on” vessel, while the He Da was the “give-way” vessel.
In trying this case, the Court had the benefit of sitting with Captain John Simpson, Master Mariner, as nautical assessor. The Court recorded its gratitude to Captain Simpson for his expert advice on questions of a nautical nature arising in the course of trial.
The Judge was impressed by Captain Zakkour as a witness. Captain Zakkour’s witness statement deposed that the Pontodamon was heading eastwards in the B2 traffic lane immediately before the collision. But at trial he accepted in light of the VTS information that the Pontodamon was actually to the south of the B2 lane (i.e. within the no.2 anchorage) moving eastward roughly in parallel to the B2 traffic lane. Captain Zakkour explained that he did not enter the B2 traffic lane because, when the Pontodamon dropped off the pilot at the station to the south of the B2 lane, the pilot had suggested to him that the Pontodamon should simply head eastward along the no.2 anchorage in a direction parallel to the B2 lane. According to Captain Simpson, who has had personal experience as a pilot, it is common practice for pilots to suggest that, in order (say) to avoid other ships in a congested lane, a vessel might not immediately enter a traffic lane but proceed in a relevant direction outside the lane. The Judge accepted Captain Simpson’s evidence on this matter as supporting Captain Zakkour.
The He Da’s owners noted that Captain Zakkour’s report to the Shanghai Maritime Safety Agency (MSA) stated that, just before the collision, the Pontodamon was moving within the B1 and B2 traffic lanes. The report to the MSA also stated (wrongly) that the collision occurred in B2. Captain Zakkour replied that his report (made 3 days after the collision) was prepared in a rush before all details relating to the collision could be ascertained. It therefore should not be regarded as accurate in every respect, having been prepared in the heat of the moment. The Judge accepted Captain Zakkour’s explanation for his report. In this respect, the Judge did not think that there was any reason to doubt Captain Zakkour’s evidence that, before the collision, the Pontodamon was on a heading of 088 degrees.
The Judge was unable to infer from the Pontodamon’s southward drift while proceeding eastwards that her crew were not keeping a proper look out.
The He Da’s owners also queried Captain Zakkour’s evidence in relation to unsuccessful attempts by the Pontodamon’s crew to contact the He Da by VHF signal, Aldis lamp and whistle blast. But the Judge saw no reason to reject that evidence.
In any event, Captain Zakkour’s evidence on the matter was itself qualified. He did not say that he gave every signal which might conceivably be required by COLREGS. For instance, Captain Zakkour accepted that, immediately before the Pontodamon steered 10 degrees to port, he did not order 2 short whistle blasts to be sounded to indicate that the Pontodamon would be so turning. He did not do this, because to his mind, all he was doing at that stage was to ensure that there was a safer clearance between his vessel and the He Da. He had assumed (wrongly as it turned out) that, not having responded to the Pontodamon’s previous attempts at communication by VHF signal, Aldis lamp and whistle blast, the He Da would continue at its then course and speed. On such assumption, he reckoned it would be pointless (and possibly confusing) to inform the He Da that the Pontodamon was turning to port.
The Judge further accepted Captain Zakkour’s evidence to the effect that the He Da had crossed the Pontodamon’s bow before he decided to turn 10 degrees to port. By the time that the Pontodamon was executing the 10 degree turn to port, 25% of the He Da had crossed the Pontodamon’s bow. Captain Zakkour’s evidence on this matter was corroborated by revised Plot 3 (adduced on behalf of the Pontodamon based on the VTS information). Revised Plot 3 indicated that the He Da crossed the Pontodamon’s bow at about 2123 hours.
In contrast, the Judge did not regard Captain Ma as an impressive witness. The Judge’s difficulty arose out of Captain Ma’s repeated and adamant evidence at trial that at about 2115 he instructed his Third Officer to turn immediately 10 degrees to starboard. According to Captain Ma, at that time (about 2115) he had visually assessed the Pontodamon to be 5 nautical miles away. But the VTS information plainly showed that, from 2115 to just before the collision, the He Da never turned 10 degrees to starboard. From 2115 until just before the collision, the He Da instead proceeded in more or less a straight line along its south-westerly course at about 6 to 7 knots.
The He Da’s owners sought to make light of this discrepancy. Captain Ma referred to the time of turning to starboard as “about 2115”. The He Da’s owners submitted that the turn to starboard being referred to by Captain Ma could have occurred earlier. The VTS information did not cover the period before 2115. But it appeared, on the evidence of the He Da’s deck log and working chart, that the He Da altered course to 240 degrees at 2056. At that time the He Da was crossing precautionary area A of the Shanghai port’s traffic separation scheme with a view to maneuvering into the C2 traffic lane. Such a 240 degree turn, however, was not the same thing as a 10 degree turn to starboard.
Cross-examined on the matter, Captain Ma did not make much sense. He seemed to be suggesting that the turn at 2056 was the 10 degree starboard turn to which he was referring. According to Captain Ma, because of the “dangerous currents” around precautionary area A, the turn at 2056 had been premature. So, by around 2115, the vessel was back on its former course. That explanation arose more questions than it answered. For instance:-
How did the course alteration to 240 degrees amount to an “immediate” 10 degree turn to starboard?
If at 2056 Captain Ma believed that the Third Officer should “immediately” turn 10 degrees starboard to avoid the Pontodamon and if the He Da somehow resumed its previous course despite such action, why did Captain Ma not urgently order the Third Officer to turn 10 degrees to starboard again at (say) 2115 or shortly after?
Why, for the purposes of avoiding the Pontodamon, was there no turn to starboard by the He Da until the minute or so before collision at 2125?
Earlier in his oral evidence, Captain Ma had suggested that current was unlikely to affect his vessel by any significant extent as she was laden with cargo. If so, how could Captain Ma suddenly claim that the current in area A significantly affected his vessel?
The He Da is highly maneuverable. Had the He Da executed a 10 degree turn to starboard at around 2115 (when the Pontodamon was still 5 nautical miles away), she would have readily swung out of the Pontodamon’s course and easily avoided passing anywhere near the latter ship. From the VTS information, it was plain that no such turn at around 2115 happened. Instead, the He Da merely proceeded on a straight course at a relatively constant speed. It seemed to the Judge therefore that in all likelihood Captain Ma did not order a 10 degree turn to starboard at 2056 or 2115. In all likelihood, he did not order any turn to starboard until the minute or so before the collision.
The Judge’s doubts over Captain Ma’s evidence on the alleged 10 degree turn meant that the Judge could not accept as reliable his account of what happened in the 10 minutes or so before the collision. For example, an implication of Captain Ma’s testimony was that, insofar as he realised at about 2115 that the Pontodamon and the He Da were heading towards each other, he would have ordered an immediate turn to starboard. The fact that no such turn happened suggested that Captain Ma might not actually have realised or known at about 2115 that the 2 ships were heading towards each other. That would suggest that there had been no proper look out on board the He Da and, in consequence, there might well not have been attempts on the He Da’s part to communicate with the Pontodamon. That would also explain why the Pontodamon’s attempts at communication with the He Da had no result. In other words, no one might have been properly monitoring the situation from on board the He Da until too late. Otherwise, why was there not the “immediate” turn which Captain Ma repeatedly stressed in Court he thought should have been made in the relevant situation?
For those reasons, the Judge rejected Captain Ma’s evidence.
What probably happened was the Pontodamon’s crew noticed the He Da at around 2105. The Pontodamon then attempted to contact the He Da to ascertain her intentions. Those attempts proved futile. The He Da continued on her course at a speed of about 6 to 7 knots. Captain Zakkour appreciated that the 2 vessels would not collide if they proceeded at their then current courses and speed. But he also appreciated that, on their then courses and speeds, the passing distance between the 2 ships would be close. The He Da crossed the Pontodamon’s bow at about 2123. Captain Zakkour saw this. At that time, Captain Zakkour decided that, to be on the safe side, he would cause the Pontodamon to turn a gentle 10 degrees to port. This (Captain Zakkour thought) would ensure a wider clearance between the 2 vessels. But as the Pontodamon was executing its maneuver to port, the He Da’s crew belatedly realised that the Pontodamon was heading very close to their vessel. The He Da then suddenly executed a starboard turn, in all probability by way of a desperate last-minute attempt to pass the Pontodamon on the latter’s port side. But that turn to starboard by the He Da was too late. It exacerbated the situation and caused the He Da to run into the Pontodamon.
It followed from the Judge’s findings that the He Da should be held wholly responsible for the collision. The He Da’s owners had submitted otherwise. But the Judge disagreed with the He Da’s owners.
First, the He Da’s owners argued that all or most of the blame for the collision should be attributed to the Pontodamon. This was because the Pontodamon put itself in a dangerous position by proceeding in the no.2 anchorage area, rather than the B2 traffic lane. In short, the Pontodamon was travelling where it ought not to have been.
Assume for the sake of argument that the Pontodamon should have been in lane B2. Even then, the Judge did not think that the Pontodamon’s presence in the no.2 anchorage was causative of the collision. The He Da should have spotted the Pontodamon from at least 5 nautical miles away. At that distance there was more than ample time, and the He Da was sufficiently maneuverable, for the He Da to steer clear out of the Pontodamon’s way. There was enough time for the He Da as the give-way vessel to avoid a collision.
Second, the He Da’s owners argued that the Pontodamon was moving too fast. The He Da’s owners originally suggested that the Pontodamon should have been moving at a speed of 7 knots. But Captain Simpson pointed out (and the Judge accepted) that such a speed would have been far too slow. The He Da’s owners later revised her suggested speed to 11 knots. Captain Simpson’s view on this was that 11 knots was an acceptable speed. But this did not mean that 16 knots was an unreasonable speed. Given the good visibility and given the presence of slower fishing vessels in the vicinity, Captain Simpson did not think that 16 knots was an unreasonable for the Pontodamon. If anything, a speed of 16 knots would enable the Pontodamon to overtake slow fishing vessels and to make clear her intention to proceed out of the port area as soon as practicable.
COLREGS r.17(a)(i) provides that, where one vessel (the give-way vessel) is to keep out of the way, the other (the stand-on vessel) shall keep her course and speed. That was precisely what the Pontodamon (as the stand-on vessel) did. It was for the He Da to give way, if necessary by slowing down or altering her course. See COLREGS r.16 which states that the give-way vessel shall, so far as possible, take early and substantial action to keep well clear.
Third, the He Da’s owners said that the Pontodamon failed to take early action. But as the stand-on vessel it was for the Pontodamon to maintain her course and speed. Further, any other action by the Pontodamon might have been confusing. The He Da would not have known whether the Pontodamon was intending to proceed (as the Pontodamon was bound to do under COLREGS r.17) or to give way.
Fourth, the He Da’s owners submitted that the Pontodamon wrongly veered to port in violation of COLREGS r.17(a)(ii) and (c). The former sub-rule provides that a stand-on vessel may (not must) take action to avoid collision. But the latter sub-rule qualifies this. If the circumstances of the case admit, the avoidance action taken by the stand-on vessel should not involve altering her course to port for a vessel on her own port side.
The Judge did not think that the Pontodamon violated the sub-rules cited by the He Da’s owners. When the Pontodamon veered to port, the He Da had crossed the Pontodamon’s bow and 25% of the He Da was to the starboard side of the Pontodamon. In other words, at the time of the Pontodamon’s maneuver, the He Da was no longer just to the Pontodamon’s port side.
Fifth, the He Da’s owners submitted that the Pontodamon failed to give adequate warning before executing its maneuver to port. For instance, the Pontodamon did not give 2 short whistle blasts before turning to port.
But, on the Judge’s findings, the Pontodamon attempted to contact the He Da by VHF, lamp and sound signals. It is true that the Pontodamon did not sound 2 short whistle blasts before turning to port. That was justifiable in the circumstances. Captain Zakkour reasonably inferred from the He Da’s failure to give way that the latter ship would simply proceed in the same direction and at the same speed. Captain Zakkour was only turning to port to ensure sufficient clearance. The Judge therefore did not think that the failure to make 2 short whistle blasts before the 10 degree port turn constituted a source of blame.
Sixth, the He Da’s owners suggested that the He Da had limited options to avoid collision. The starboard side of the He Da was close to the western fringe of the C2 traffic lane (where there were some vessels) and there was an overtaking vessel to port.
But the Judge was not persuaded by this submission. Taken at face value, Captain Ma’s evidence implied that the He Da could have turned (and allegedly did turn) to starboard when the 2 vessels were still about 5 nautical miles apart. On the assumption of a proper lookout on the He Da, the thrust of Captain Ma’s evidence was that there was more than enough room and time to maneuver the He Da to starboard and avoid a collision at that point. Further, it was unclear why any overtaking vessel to the He Da’s port side should pose a real difficulty. COLREGS r.13(a) provides that an overtaking vessel shall keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken. Assume that the He Da was for some reason minded to turn to port to avoid collision with the Pontodamon. In such circumstance, the He Da could have signalled that intention to the overtaking vessel. It would then have been for the overtaking vessel to keep clear of the He Da as required by COLREGS r.13(a). The bottom line was that the He Da ought to have given way by turning to starboard much earlier than she actually did. The He Da did not turn starboard at an earlier stage, although it had sufficient opportunity to do safely. The He Da only turned to starboard after crossing the Pontodamon’s bow. By then, it was too late and dangerous for the He Da to turn to starboard.
The He Da was wholly to blame for the collision. There would be judgment on liability against the He Da’s owners in favour of the Pontodamon’s owners accordingly. There would be an Order Nisi that the He Da’s owners pay the Pontodamon’s owners’ costs of this action in relating to the question of liability. Such costs would include the costs of the trial on liability. The quantum of the Pontodamon’s owners’ loss and damage remained to be assessed. The parties were to agree directions for the assessment of quantum and for the further conduct of this action.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or you would like to have a copy of the Judgment.
23/F, Excel Centre, 483A Castle Peak Road, Lai Chi Kok, Kowloon, Hong Kong 香港九龍荔枝角青山道483A卓匯中心23樓 Tel: 2299 5566 Fax: 2866 7096 E-mail: gm@smicsl.com Website: www.sun-mobility.com A MEMBER OF THE HONG KONG CONFEDERATION OF INSURANCE BROKERS 香港保險顧問聯會會員
True professional dedication endures the test of time. SMIC devoted a great deal of time in fostering awareness of the importance in transport document constructions. In the last decade SMIC seminars covered HBL, HAWB, FCR, Claims handling, international sea, and air freight conventions. The same last decade also witnesses 120 issues of effort written Chans Advice circulated monthly to about 20,000 readers who read them for more than 2,400,000 times.
Discerning forwarders realize the importance to boost up loss prevention and claim handling ability for long term profitability. SMIC’s ability in helping forwarders achieving that goal is proven – SMIC forwarders are fortified by in depth transport legal knowledge truly essential for successful loss prevention. Such ability is not convincing without the test of time. Drop us a line for a try.
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 11/12/2013 holding that a Hong Kong plaintiff needed to put up a security for costs in a court case concerning a yacht sinking incident. [HCCL 5/2013]
The Hong Kong 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 High Court of Hong Kong issued a Decision on 31/8/2018 concerning a feeder company’s claim against a shipping company’s lawyer for wasted costs. [HCA1919/2016] [2018HKCFI1879]
The Hong Kong 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 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]
Are Standard Trading Conditions (“STC”) equivalent to the House Bill of Lading (“HB/L”) terms or the House Air Waybill (“HAWB”) terms? We have been frequently asked this question by our forwarder clients.
In this issue, we would like to continue with the case (CSAV v Hin-Pro) mentioned in our monthly newsletter of Chans advice/169 two months ago. The Hong Kong Court of Appeal issued its Judgment on 11/3/2015 discharging the Mareva Injunctions and the receivership orders granted by DHCJ Saunders against Hin-Pro and Soar. [CACV 243/2014]
The 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 Shanghai Maritime Court issued a Judgment on 24/12/2009 to deal with the question whether a shipping company could charge the container demurrage based on the tariff published on its website.
The Hong Kong 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 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.
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]
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.
Remember Chans advice/142 dated 31/10/2012 that the High Court of Hong Kong held the forwarder liable for cargo misdelivery without production of original bills of lading? The High Court of Hong Kong issued another Judgment on 4/12/2012 dealing with the interest and costs. [HCCL 20/2011 & HCCL 21/2011]
The English High Court issued a Judgment on 31/7/2015 dismissing a cargo owner’s conversion claim US $565,891.58 against a shipowner in an uncollected cargo case. [(2015) EWHC 2288 (Comm), (2015) 2 C.L.C. 415]
The High Court of Hong Kong issued a Decision on 15 November 2018 concerning the tragic collision between the cargo vessel CF Crystal and the tanker Sanchi, which happened on 6 January 2018 and led to the death of all the officers and crew of the Sanchi. [HCAJ3/2018] [2018HKCFI2474]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a judgment on 21/4/2016 and disallowed a cargo owner’s application for summary judgment against a forwarder in connection with a cargo (a diamond) missing claim of US$900,000. [HCCL 10/2015]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 19 March 2018 dealing with some legal principles in relation to granting relief against unless orders in a ship collision case. [HCAJ 84/2017] [2018 HKCFI 609]
The 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 High Court of Hong Kong issued a Judgment on 1/11/2012 ordering the USA/Canada owners of a cargo (a yacht) to put up HK$250,000 as further security for costs in their legal action against the ship owners. [HCAJ 177/2009]
The Hong Kong 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 on 9/7/2015 in relation to the High Court Judgment dated 21/7/2014 (reported in our Chans advice/167 dated 28/11/2014). [HCMP 2315/2014]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a 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 on 9/5/2017 allowing a time extension for some cargo interests to claim against the Tonnage Limitation Fund constituted by the owner of one of the two vessels involved in a collision that happened on 7/11/2013. [HCAJ 189/2013]
The English Court of Appeal 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 High Court of Hong Kong issued a Decision on 23 May 2018 allowing a shipowner to be represented by 2 different firms of solicitors (one appointed by its hull underwriters and the other appointed by its P&I Club). [HCAJ84/2017] [2018HKCFI1136]
The Hong Kong District Court issued a Judgment on 28/4/2014 dismissing a seller’s cargo misdelivery claim of US$122,302.80 against a freight forwarder and holding the seller liable to pay the outstanding freight charges of US$28,855 to the forwarder. [DCCJ 344/2010]
The Hong Kong 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 Montreal Convention is an international treaty agreed by 140 states in respect of governing carriers’ liability for injury or death of passengers, damage to or loss of baggage and cargo and losses caused by delays. Hong Kong has adopted it through the Carriage by Air Ordinance (Cap 500).
The Hong Kong District Court issued a Decision on 8 May 2020 upholding a summary judgment ordering one forwarder to pay outstanding airfreight charges of HK$440,000 to another forwarder. [DCCJ1202/2018] [2020HKDC307]
The Hong Kong 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]
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 District Court issued a Judgment on 8/4/2014 holding that the one year’s suit time limit under the Hague Visby Rules does not apply to the carrier’s claims against the shipper. [DCCJ 4438/2013]
The Hong Kong Court of Appeal issued a Judgment [CACV144/2017] [2018HKCA299] on 29/6/2018 upholding the High Court’s Judgment dated 2/6/2017 (which was reported in our Chans advice/201).
The Hong Kong 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]
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 Court of Appeal issued a Judgment on 29/1/2016 dealing with a case of one or two days’ delay in appeal in relation to a barge sinking accident. [HCMP 3172/2015]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 15 March 2021 converting a domestic Mareva injunction into a worldwide Mareva injunction in a shipowner’s freight and demurrage claim against a charterer. [HCMP 1190/2020] [2021 HKCFI 680]
The Ningbo Maritime Court issued a Judgment on 25/5/2016, and dismissed a cargo insurer’s (PICC Ningbo) recovery claim of USD25,238.40 against Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd (“MOSK”) in relation to the vessel MOL Comfort sinking into the Indian Ocean on 17/6/2013.
The 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]
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.
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 English Commercial Court issued a Judgment on 7/11/2012 holding a carrier liable for US$458,655.69 owing to its issuing 13 clean Bills of Lading for a consignment of steel pipes which had some pre-shipment damage. [2012 EWHC 3124 (Comm)]
The 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]
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.
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.
This continues the Q&A in our off-line real seminar on Uncollected and Undelivered Cargo on 28 May 2024. Participants were keen to know more about seaway bills, how war plays in insurance? How modes of transport differ mis-delivery claims handling? What is insurers’ attitude towards transloading claims? And finally, why mis-delivery and uncollected cargo claims deserve special attention. SMIC deals with similar questions daily. Each case varies in its cause, and therefore healing recipe differs. But if you are conversant with fundamentals. They could be simple.
We mentioned in our Chans advice/225 that the limit of liability under the Montreal Convention for carriage of cargoes was increased from 19 SDR/kg to 22 SDR/kg of the gross weight of the cargoes effective on 28 December 2019. We have recently received some forwarders’ request asking us to talk about the major terms in the Montreal Convention. We in this issue would like to introduce the Montreal Convention’s major provisions as follows:
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 22 Feb 2021 holding that the wreck removal claims of a ship sunk were not subject to the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976. [HCAJ 98/2019] [2021 HKCFI 396]
The Hong Kong 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 on 13/8/2013 held a shipper liable to a shipping company for paying demurrage of US$1,645,286.74 plus interest and costs. [HCAJ 166/2011]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 24/11/2015 dealing with a mandatory injunction and specific performance in respect of a letter of indemnity in connection with a delivery of cargo without production of the original bills of lading. [HCCL 12/2015]
The 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.
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 High Court on 18/11/2011 issued a Judgment concerning a quite confusing situation that three different laws (the USA, the PRC, and Hong Kong) might apply to the one shipment. [HCAJ 198/2009]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 18/11/2016 dismissing a shipping company’s application for summary judgment against its former deputy general manager (Mr Ma) for restitution of the sum of HK$387,655,303.70 on the ground of money had and received and/or unjust enrichment. [HCA 619/2016]
The Hong Kong 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 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 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]
To continue our recent series of loss prevention articles, we would like to discuss in this issue the major provisions of the PRC Maritime Code as far as the international carriage of goods by sea is concerned.
The Hong Kong High Court issued a 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]
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 Decision on 20/12/2017 dealing with a dispute of US$948,802.05 (as the price of bunkers supplied to a vessel) between a vessel charterer and a bunker supplier. [HCA2265/2016]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a decision on 11/9/2013 concerning a shipowner’s application to extend the validity of a writ of summons against a Taiwan hull and machinery insurer. [HCAJ 95/2012]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 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 Court of Appeal issued a Judgment on 20 September 2019 declining to give leave of appeal to Changhong Group in relation to the High Court Decision dated 29 January 2019 (reported in our Chans advice/221). [CAMP197/2019] [2019HKCA1061]
In the transport industry, the contracts of carriage (e.g. Bills of Lading, Air Waybills) usually contain an exclusive jurisdiction clause for settling disputes. However, it is not uncommon that the shippers and consignees sue the transport operators in a court other than the one specified in the exclusive jurisdiction clause. In Hong Kong, the transport operators may rely on the Foreign Judgments (Restriction on Recognition and Enforcement) Ordinance to tackle this kind of situation.
The Hong Kong High Court issued a judgment on 12/4/2016 to dismiss a cargo owner’s action in respect of breaking a barge owner’s tonnage limitation. [HCAJ 178/2014]
The Court of Appeal of Hong Kong issued a judgment on 28 March 2019 dealing with a matter concerning the sale pendente lite of an oil tanker Brightoil Glory. [CAMP49/2019][2019HKCA395]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 2/6/2017 dealing with the liability apportionment among 3 vessels in 2 almost simultaneous collisions that happened near Hong Kong on 14/5/2011. [HCAJ158/2012 and HCAJ49/2013 and HCAJ48/2011]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 29/4/2013 relating to a discovery order ancillary to and in support of a Mareva injunction. [HCA 2124/2011]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 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 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]
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 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 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]
The High Court of Hong Kong issued a Decision on 21/9/2017 dealing with the principles in respect of the real risk of dissipation of assets in a case of Mareva Injunction involving a shipowner and a charterer. [HCMP 1010/2017]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a 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]
In Chans advice/215, we reported that the Hong Kong High Court refused Changhong Group’s application to stay the Hong Kong proceedings; and in Chans advice/234, we reported that the Court of Final Appeal dismissed Changhong Group’s application for leave to appeal. On 7 April 2022, the Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision dealing with Changhong Group’s action to re-litigate its stay application. [HCAJ 3/2018] [2022 HKCFI 920]
The English High Court issued a Judgment on 15/5/2015 maintaining an anti-suit injunction to restrain the Xiamen Maritime Court’s legal proceedings in breach of a London arbitration agreement. [Case No: 2015-515], [2015 WL 2238741], [2015 EWHC 1974 COMM]
The Hong Kong 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]
Remember our Chans advice/165 (reporting the Hong Kong Court of Appeal holding the Hong Kong forwarder liable to pay US$852,339 plus costs and interest to the Indian bank in the air cargo misdelivery case)? On 19/5/2016, the Court of Final Appeal dismissed the Hong Kong forwarder’s application for seeking leave to appeal. [FAMV Nos 45 & 52 of 2015]
The High Court of Hong Kong issued a summary Judgment on 28/9/2012 holding a forwarder liable for US$626,389 plus costs and interest for misdelivery of cargoes without production of the original bills of lading. [HCCL 20/2011 & HCCL 21/2011]
The 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 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]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 22/11/2013 concerning an unless order in relation to a freight forwarder’s claims for outstanding freight charges of HK$4,427,336. [HCA 1755/2011]
The 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]
Remember our Chans advice/163 about the English High Court’s Judgment holding the Hague Visby Rules instead of the Hague Rules to apply to the cargo damage claim case in excess of US$3.6 million? The English Court of Appeal issued a Judgment on 24/2/2016 upholding the High Court’s conclusion but with different reasons. [Case No: A3/2014/1285, 2016 EWCA Civ 101, 2016 WL 00692394]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 5/8/2015 holding that a shipment of formula milk powder without the legally required export licence should not be forfeited. [HCMA171/2015]
Remember our Chans advice/138 regarding the Hong Kong High Court’s Judgment holding the He Da 98’s owners fully liable in the collision that happened off Shanghai? The Hong Kong High Court issued its Decision on 18/1/2013 dealing with the damages to be paid to the Pontodamon’s owners. [HCAJ 200/2007]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 16 January 2019 dealing with the appeal of the wasted costs’ case reported by our Chans advice/214. [HCA1919/2016] [2019HKCFI127]
The English High Court issued a Judgment on 2/4/2014 holding the Hague Visby Rules instead of the Hague Rules (as incorporated by a Paramount Clause) to apply to a shipment ex Belgium. [Case No: 2012 Folio 102, 2014 EWHC 971 Comm, 2014 WL 1219313]
The High Court of Hong Kong issued a Judgment on 22/5/2017 holding that the District Court has jurisdiction to determine bill of lading and bailment cases. [HCAJ 150/2014]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 29 January 2019 dismissing Changhong Group’s application for stay of the legal proceedings against it brought by the consignee and the insurer of the cargo on board the Sanchi. [HCAJ6/2018, 2019HKCFI263]
The High Court of Hong Kong issued a Judgment on 3/2/2012 concerning which currency (US$ 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]
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]
In our newsletter last month, we talked about some essential terms in house Air Waybills. In this issue, as the continuation of the loss prevention exercise for freight forwarders, we would like to discuss some essential terms in house Bills of Lading.
The Hong Kong High Court issued a judgment on 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]
There are three ways of fulfilling the deposit requirement of the Ministry of Transport (“MOT”) in the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) for your NVOCC license.
In 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]
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 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]
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 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 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]
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]
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]
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]
Without even knowing, we have published including this one 200 issues of the Chans Advice. As this is a monthly bulletin, 100 issues took more than 8 years and 200 issues took 17 years to run.
The United States District Court (Southern District of New York) issued an order on 29 November 2021 to deny a shipping company’s motion to rely on the Singapore jurisdiction clause in its bill of lading. [1:19-cv-5731-GHW-RWL]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a 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 limit of liability for international carriage of cargoes by air under the Montreal Convention has been revised from 19 SDR/Kg to 22 SDR/Kg of the gross weight of the cargoes effective from 28 December 2019. We have received many enquiries from freight forwarders about changing their house Air Waybills’ terms to cope with the new limit of liability. We would like to take this opportunity to discuss some essential terms in house Air Waybills.
We reported in our Chans advice/252 that the Hong Kong High Court held Hyundai Hong Kong’s ex-Deputy General Manager (Mr Ma) liable to compensate HK$387,655,303.70 to Hyundai Hong Kong in the case of his theft of his employer’s money. On 23 December 2022, the Hong Kong High Court issued a decision ordering a sum of HK$500,000 (which was deposited by Mr Ma as bail money) to be released to Hyundai Hong Kong in partial satisfaction of Mr Ma’s judgment debt. [HCA 619/2016] [2022 HKCFI 3798]
The High Court of Hong Kong issued a Judgment on 4/5/2012 explaining some legal principles as to when shipowners should fear the arrest of their ships. [HCAJ 141/2010]
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]
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.
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.
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]
We recently have received a lot of uncollected cargo claim cases from our forwarder clients, which have kept our 6 claim handlers very busy. We would like to take this opportunity to talk about this troublesome problem of uncollected cargoes. Actually, the forwarders have been facing this real headache in at least these two decades.
The Hong Kong High Court issued a decision on 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]
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 23/12/2013 dealing with an application for security for costs in relation to a ship sinking case. [HCAJ 213/2009]
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]
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)]
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.
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.
