The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 12/1/2016 refusing to grant a shipowner an anti-suit injunction because of the shipowner’s delay in applying for the anti-suit injunction. [HCMP 2399/2015]
By an Originating Summons dated 25/9/2015 (“OS”), the owner of the vessel MV Zagora (“Vessel”) applied for an anti-suit injunction against a bank restraining the latter from continuing proceedings commenced in the Qingdao Maritime Court (“Mainland Proceedings”) against the former in breach of an arbitration clause.
The shipowner entered into a contract of carriage, as contained in a bill of lading (“B/L”) dated 14/12/2013. The B/L was endorsed and delivered to the bank pursuant to a letter of credit issued by it. The bank became the lawful holder of the B/L and assumed all rights and liabilities under the same. The bank was not reimbursed for the payment made under the letter of credit, and hence it was endeavouring to recovery the loss by suing on the B/L.
On the face of the B/L, it was stated as follows: (a) “TO BE USED WITH CHARTER-PARTIES”; (b) “Freight payable as per Charter Party 19 Nov 2013”; (c) “FOR CONDITIONS OF CARRIAGE SEE OVERLEAF”. On the back of the B/L, it was expressly provided under Conditions of Carriage:
“ (1) Terms and Conditions. All terms and conditions, liberties and exceptions of the Charter Party, dated as overleaf, including the law and Arbitration Clause, are herewith incorporated. (2) General Paramount Clause. The Hague Rules … dated Brussels the 25th August 1925 as enacted in the country of shipment, shall apply to this Bill of Lading ….”
Under clause 54 of the Charter Party dated 19/11/2013 (“C/P”), the arbitration clause (which included a choice of law), stated as follows:
“ Any dispute arising out of this Charter Party or any Bill of Lading issued hereunder shall be referred to arbitration in Hong Kong … English law shall apply. … Any claim must be made in writing and the claimant’s arbitrator nominated within twelve months of the final discharge of the cargo under this Charter Party, failing which any such claim shall be deemed to be waived and absolutely barred.” [emphasis added]
The cargo in question (71,650 mt of hematite ore lump) was shipped from Western Australia and was discharged from the Vessel on 31/12/2013 at Lanshan Port in the Mainland. According to the arbitration clause in question (“Clause”), the limitation period (“Limitation Period”) for the institution of arbitration expired on 30/12/2014.
In respect of the Mainland Proceedings, the Vessel was arrested on 29/8/2014, and released on 24/9/2014 after security by way of a bank guarantee (“Guarantee”) was put up by the shipowner in place of the Vessel. In dealing with the release of the Vessel, the shipowner had acted via its Mainland lawyers. The arrest procedure was a different set of proceedings from the Mainland Proceedings which followed.
A statement of claim (“SOC”) for the Mainland Proceedings, a claim for wrongful discharge of cargo, was issued on 15/9/2014 prior to the release of the Vessel. This constituted the commencement of the Mainland Proceedings. However, it was only served on the shipowner on 13/5/2015 (a delay of 8 months).
There was a confirmation letter (“Letter”) issued by the shipowner to the bank on 9/1/2015 confirming that the Vessel was not under any bareboat charter at the material time. There was no evidence as to why there was such a letter. However, it appeared that the confirmation was actually made to the Qingdao Maritime Court (“QMC”) (quoting the case number of the Mainland Proceedings), and it was signed by the shipowner as the defendant in that action.
The shipowner applied to challenge the jurisdiction of the QMC on 5/6/2015 based on the Clause. On 19/6/2015, the bank was informed by the QMC about the jurisdictional challenge.
The jurisdictional challenge was rejected by the QMC on 29/6/2015. It appeared from the evidence that, under Mainland law, an arbitration clause would only be validly incorporated into a contract if it is clearly stated on the front side of the contract. The B/L does not meet that requirement. An appeal was lodged on 12/8/2015 by the shipowner with the Shandong Higher People’s Court in respect of the rejection. That appeal was also rejected on 6/11/2015, after the filing of the OS.
Service of the Mainland Proceedings
After the acceptance of the bank’s case by the QMC, a hearing was fixed to take place on 7/11/2014. Under Mainland law, service of the SOC (together with related papers) had to be executed by the QMC. The unsuccessful attempts to serve the papers on the shipowner were summarised as follows:
The QMC tried to serve the SOC and other documents on the shipowner by post to its registered office in Greece. The documents were returned because, allegedly, there was no such company at the address;
As a consequence of the failure to serve the papers on the shipowner, the hearing on 7/11/2014 had to be cancelled;
The QMC then contacted the shipowner’s Mainland lawyers, who claimed that they had no authority to acknowledge service for the shipowner;
The bank’s Mainland lawyers also contacted those lawyers repeatedly and were given the same answer;
Finally, the QMC had to resort to service by way of public announcement on 3/4/2015;
A receipt of service was signed by a representative of the shipowner on 13/5/2015 formally acknowledging service of documents by the QMC.
The shipowner did not take any substantive step or submit to the jurisdiction of the QMC.
General legal principles
There was no dispute on the legal principles generally applied in an application of the type in question, which have been summarised by G Lam J in Ever Judger Holding Co Ltd v Kroman Celik Sanayii Anonim Sirketi [2015] 2 HKLRD 866 at 887, §45:
“ It is clear, therefore, as a matter of Hong Kong law that the court in this jurisdiction should ordinarily grant an injunction to restrain the pursuit of foreign proceedings brought in breach of an agreement for Hong Kong arbitration, at any rate where the injunction has been sought without delay and the foreign proceedings are not too far advanced, unless the defendant can demonstrate strong reason to the contrary.” [emphasis added]
The issues
The scope of the arguments was narrowed down at the hearing as follows:
(a) Whether the Clause had been validly incorporated into the B/L; (b) Whether the injunction should be refused because of :
(i) culpable delay on the part of the shipowner; (ii) comity consideration; (iii) serious prejudice to the bank by reason of the expiration of the Limitation Period and the loss of security (the Guarantee).
The resolution of the above required the determination of 2 factual issues, namely, whether the shipowner had deliberately evaded the service of the Mainland Proceedings and whether the bank had acted reasonably in failing to preserve its right to sue in the contractual forum within the Limitation Period.
Incorporation of the Clause
The Judge agreed with the shipowner that it was quite clear that the B/L had validly incorporated the Clause.
When deciding whether a choice of law and arbitration clause has been incorporated into a contract, under Hong Kong conflicts rules, Hong Kong courts will regard the chosen law as the applicable law. The Judge agreed with, the dicta of HH Deputy Judge S Chan in Tung Ho Wah v Star Cruises (HK) Ltd [2006] 3 HKLRD 254 at 260D-E, §21:
“ As a general rule, issues on the “material validity” of a contract or of any term of a contract, such as formation of the agreement or incorporation of terms, are determined by the putative applicable law of the contract, viz the law which would govern the contract if the contract or term were valid.”
As the Clause specified the application of English law, English law is the putative applicable law. Under Hong Kong conflicts rules, English law is therefore applicable to the question of whether the Clause was incorporated into the B/L.
There is no suggestion of any material difference between English law and Hong Kong law. Therefore, the presumption that the two are the same applies.
It is trite that an express reference to a choice of law and arbitration clause is sufficient for those clauses to be incorporated: The Rena K [1979] 1 QB 377 at 390F-391C per Brandon J; The “Delos” [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 703 at 705-706 per Langley J.
The B/L’s express reference to the “law and Arbitration Clause” of the C/P being incorporated means that the Clause had indeed been validly incorporated into the B/L.
Evasion of service
Firstly, the bank said that the shipowner had deliberately evaded service of the Mainland Proceedings on it so that the Limitation Period would expire before any action would be taken by the bank.
During the 8 months between the commencement of the Mainland Proceedings (September 2014) and the successful service of the same on the shipowner (May 2015) no mention was ever made by the shipowner of the Clause, no objection was raised with the institution of the Mainland Proceedings in breach of the Clause, and no suggestion was made of any application for anti-suit injunction.
The shipowner’s conduct had to be viewed in light of the fact that it had instructed lawyers to negotiate with the bank and its lawyers to secure the release of the Vessel. The Guarantee was provided on 23/9/2014, after the SOC had been filed. In the Ruling by the QMC on the bank’s application to arrest the Vessel dated 27/8/2014, it was provided that the defendant should commence proceedings before the QMC within 30 days, failing which the arrest order would be lifted.
Further, the bank was at pains to stress that the Letter (dated 9/1/2015) referred to the Mainland Proceedings by its case number and the shipowner referred to itself as “defendant” in that document.
In the premises, the shipowner must have been well aware of the commencement of the Mainland Proceedings, and it was legally advised all along. The bank submitted that during the 8 months in question, the shipowner deliberately refrained from authorizing its lawyers to accept service, until May 2015 when it could no longer evade service in light of the service by public announcement.
The bank further argued that the shipowner’s conduct had induced the bank to believe that no jurisdictional challenge would be raised. Had the shipowner raised the issue of the Clause or anti-suit injunction after the commencement of the Mainland Proceedings, the bank could have taken steps to protect itself against the expiration of the Limitation Period, eg, by serving a notice of arbitration on the shipowner.
The Judge believed that the evidence before the court strongly supported the inferences that the shipowner was evading service and waiting for the Limitation Period to expire, which was the only motive for the delay.
Limitation Period
The bank did not have a copy of the C/P and was unaware of the Clause. However, the Judge agreed with the shipowner that the bank would have seen that the terms and conditions on the back of the B/L expressly incorporated a choice of law and arbitration clause. Yet it took no step to obtain a copy of the C/P to ascertain the position, and as a result did not become aware of the Clause until June 2015 when the shipowner challenged jurisdiction in the Mainland Proceedings. In these circumstances, it was difficult to be sympathetic to the bank’s failure to protect itself against the expiration of the Limitation Period.
In The “Skier Star” [2008] 1 Lloyds Rep 652 at 657-658, §§49-51 per Teare J, it was held that a time bar defence can only be a factor against the grant of an anti-suit injunction if it can be shown that a party acted reasonably in not protecting its claim in the contractual forum. The facts of The Skier Star, where it was held that the cargo interests had failed to act reasonably, closely mirror the case in question. In that case, the alleged wrongful discharge of cargo took place in January 2005. Belgian proceedings were commenced in February 2005, and the 1 year limitation period under the Hague-Visby Rules expired in January 2006. Under Belgian law, the London arbitration clause would not have been binding on the cargo interests. Therefore, the cargo interests did not take any step to obtain a copy of the charter party. It was not until November 2007 when the ship owners mentioned the arbitration clause that the cargo interests became aware of it. In that context, the learned Judge held at §51 that:
“ …the cargo interests were unaware of the London arbitration clause until November 2007 and … that was because they did not have a copy of the charter party. In those circumstances the cargo interests are unable to show that they acted reasonably in not protecting their cargo claim in the contractual forum. It follows that the presence of a time bar defence in the London arbitration cannot amount to a reason, let alone a “strong cause or good reason”, to refuse an anti-suit injunction.”
The Judge respectfully agreed with Teare J and likewise held that the bank had failed to act reasonably in failing to preserve its right to sue in the contractual forum.
Delay
There was a dispute whether delay could be a free-standing argument which militated against the grant of an anti-suit injunction. Unsurprisingly, the bank argued that it was, whereas the shipowner’s argument was that delay was actually irrelevant as long as the shipowner had not taken any substantive step in or submitted to jurisdiction in the Mainland Proceedings.
The parties were in agreement that the fountain head of the applicable legal principles is the English Court of Appeal authority of The “Angelic Grace” [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 87. In particular, at 96 where Millet LJ, after referring to the danger of giving an appearance of undue interference with the proceedings of a foreign court, said:
“ In my judgment, where an injunction is sought to restrain a party from proceeding in a foreign Court in breach of an arbitration agreement governed by English law, the English Court need feel no diffidence in granting the injunction, provided that it is sought promptly and before the foreign proceedings are too far advanced. I see no difference in principle between an injunction to restrain proceedings in breach of an arbitration clause and one to restrain proceedings in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause as in Continental BankN.A. v Aeakos Compania Naviera S.A., [1994] 1 W.L.R. 588. The justification for the grant of the injunction in either case is that without it the plaintiff will be deprived of its contractual rights in a situation in which damages are manifestly an inadequate remedy. The jurisdiction is, of course, discretionary and is not exercised as a matter of course, but good reason needs to be shown why it should not be exercised in any given case.”
Relying upon a recent authority of Essar Shipping Ltd v Bank of China Ltd [2015] EWHC 3266 (Comm) at §42, per Walker J, the bank submitted that the 2 provisos, namely, “that the injunction is sought promptly” and “that the foreign proceedings are not too far advanced” were two separate and cumulative provisos.
Also in reliance of Essar Shipping (§§42-43), and Ecobank Transnational Incorporated v Tanoh [2015] EWHC 1874 (Comm) at §§23-24, per Knowles J, the bank submitted that delay alone, without detriment or prejudice, might be a sufficient ground for refusing an anti-suit injunction. The Judge referred to Essar Shipping, at §§42-43:
“ 42. ESL submitted that in the passage cited in section C above Millett LJ identified two provisos that are related. What is important in my view is that they are cumulative provisos: the court need feel no diffidence provided that the injunction is sought promptly and provided that, even if the application cannot be criticised for lack of promptness, the foreign proceedings are not too far advanced. In my view there can be no doubt that lack of promptness alone may justify refusal of an anti-suit injunction. In this regard the bank drew attention to the decision of Knowles J in Ecobank Transnational Incorporated v Tanoh [2015] EWHC 1874 (Comm). In that case a submission that delay does not include periods when jurisdiction was challenged in the foreign court was rejected, as was a submission that delay alone (without detrimental reliance) would not suffice. At paragraphs 21 to 24 Knowles J said:
21. However Mr Coleman, for Ecobank, submits that delay does not include any period during which the applicant sought to challenge the jurisdiction of a foreign court and the period pending the foreign court’s decision on that challenge. 22. I cannot accept that proposition. Leggatt LJ in The Angelic Grace (above, at 95) described graphically the “reverse of comity” were the English court “to adopt the attitude that if [a foreign court] declines jurisdiction, that would meet with the approval of the English court, whereas if [the foreign court] assumed jurisdiction, the English court would then consider whether at that stage to intervene by injunction”. As Christopher Clarke J said in Transfield Shipping Inc v Chiping Xinfa Huayu Alumina Co Ltd [2009] EWHC 3629 at [78] “… comity, which involves respect for the operation of different legal systems, calls for challenges … to be made promptly in whatever is the appropriate court”. … … 23. Mr Coleman sought to draw on a separate discussion of (the defence of) laches in Fisher v Brooker and another [2009] 1 WLR 1764; [2009] UKHL 41 at [64], to develop the proposition that delay alone was not sufficient to deny an applicant for an anti-suit or anti-enforcement injunction because detrimental reliance upon the delay must (he submitted) also be shown. 24. I am not able to accept that proposition. It is not supported by authority in the area under consideration, and as a matter of principle it would unnecessarily restrict the approach of the courts. The position is best left that the presence of detrimental reliance may be a relevant circumstance to be taken into consideration, but it is not an essential condition to the preparedness of the courts to uphold or decline to uphold an arbitration agreement (or other jurisdiction clause) ….’
43. It was suggested in argument by ESL that Ecobank could be distinguished because it concerned an anti-enforcement injunction rather than an anti-suit injunction. It is clear, however, that Knowles J was treating the relevant principles in enforcement cases as being at least no less onerous than those identified in Angelic Grace. Moreover, I consider that the approach adopted by Knowles J is supported by strong public interests in requiring that those who seek an anti-suit or anti-enforcement injunction should act promptly even though, on the facts of a particular case, there has been no detrimental reliance upon the delay. That does not mean that parties much rush to court prematurely. The starting point is that it generally desirable to resolve issues speedily. Moreover, there are significant dangers to the interests of the parties and to the public interest if applications for coercive relief are delayed. If such applications are made promptly they are inherently likely to be much less complicated than will be the case at a later stage. Where a party seeking coercive relief does not act promptly, the other side is likely to be understandably aggrieved by the delay. An anti-suit injunction is a particularly intrusive form of relief, barring a party from access to justice in the forum that it would prefer. In the particular context of anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions, lack of promptness will increase the danger that such injunctions, although they are granted against a party and are not directed to the foreign court, will nevertheless be seen as inappropriately interfering with the jurisdiction of the foreign court.”
The Judge agreed with the bank that the authority of Ecobank Transnational Inc v Tanoh [2015] EWCA Civ 1309 was supportive of the bank’s contention that delay was a free-standing argument. At §127, Clarke LJ (whose judgment was agreed by Patten LJ and The Chancellor) held:
“ I agree with the judge [24] that it is not a precondition to the refusal of an injunction that the respondent should establish detrimental reliance, if by that is meant that he must show (a) that he believed that no application for an injunction would be made or (b) that he believed that and, if he had realised that an application would or might be made, he would have abandoned the foreign proceedings. The existence or otherwise of such reliance is relevant but not determinative. The relevance of delay is wider than that. The need to avoid it arises for a variety of reasons including the avoidance of prejudice, detriment, and waste of resources; the need for finality; and considerations of comity.”
It appears from the above authorities that there are 2 reasons for the court to take into account the promptness with which an anti-suit injunction application is made, namely, discretionary considerations (the court is asked to invoke its equitable jurisdiction) and comity considerations (see Ecobank, CA, §137).
The shipowner argued that the law on anti-suit injunction should be consistent with that which governs the granting of a stay in favour of arbitration where there is an arbitration clause. A stay in favour of arbitration is mandatory under s.20 of the Arbitration Ordinance, Cap 609, subject to the only condition that the stay request must be made by a party “not later than when submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute”.
Anti-suit injunctions and stays in favour of arbitration are essentially 2 sides of the same coin : see AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP v Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC [2013] 1 WLR 1889 at 1897G-H, per Lord Mance. Consistent with the law on stay, the court should hold that delay or lack of promptness is of no relevance as long as the plaintiff has not taken any substantive step in the Mainland Proceedings, said the shipowner. On the other hand, mere passage of time would be a very uncertain and arbitrary basis to derogate from contractual rights to resolve disputes by arbitration in a chosen forum.
There was certainly force in the shipowner’s arguments. However, the Judge was unable to accept them, especially in light of the latest decision in Ecobank. In §130, the Court of Appeal held, inter alia, that the need to act promptly is well-established on the authorities.
On certainty of the law, where the court is asked to exercise a discretionary power it is inevitable that all the relevant considerations will have to be taken into account (see Ecobank, CA, §122). Circumstances are never identical. Therefore, it is an inescapable consequence that there is uncertainty in the law, although the court always strives to identify and formulate propositions of principle for future guidance.
There is no specific guidance in the authorities on what is or is not to be treated as delay for the purpose in question. This is perhaps unsurprising. Delay must be examined against the relevant circumstances of the case. In practice, it is not very difficult to recognise delay where it exists.
Turing to the facts of the case in question, the Judge found that the shipowner had deliberately delayed taking any action to assert its rights under the Clause for 8 months.
It was held in Ever Judger, supra, at §81, that in assessing whether there is lack of promptness, time began to run from the start of the foreign proceedings in breach of an arbitration agreement. Once a party is aware of a breach of the arbitration agreement, it is incumbent on him to take steps to rectify the position by applying for anti-suit injunction: see The Skier Star, supra, at §§37, 42-43.
The shipowner’s delay was not confined to the 8-month period. The time taken in challenging the jurisdiction of the QMC should also count against the shipowner. In §125, the Court of Appeal in Ecobank held:
“ The judge was, therefore, right [22], in my view, not to accept that any time during which the foreign jurisdiction is challenged is to be left out of account when considering whether to grant an anti-enforcement order …”
Almost 4 months elapsed (between June and September 2015) after the shipowner made its jurisdictional challenge before the QMC and the filing of the OS. It seemed to the Judge that, on any reasonable view, the delay in this case by the shipowner was both inordinate and culpable. The Judge would decline to accede to the injunction application on the ground of delay alone.
If it was necessary to identify a time frame with which to measure the delay in question, the Judge would take into account the expiration of the Limitation Period. It was now, prima facie, too late for the bank to launch arbitration proceedings to recover its losses from the shipowner. In the Judge’s view, there was good reason to use the Limitation Period as a reference for the delay.
An application for an anti-suit injunction is to enforce a party’s right to arbitration in his chosen forum when that right has been infringed. It stands to reason that if the arbitration has to be brought within a stipulated period of time, the applicant of the injunction should conduct himself in accordance with that time frame. It would be against the notion of justice for the applicant to wait until the 11th hour or later to make the application so that there would be no arbitration because of time bar.
The Judge found support for referring to the Limitation Period in considering delay in Essar Shipping, §§54 and 61 and The “Skier Star”, §43.
The Judge noted the fact that when the Mainland Proceedings were instituted in September 2014, there were only 3 months left to run under the Limitation Period. However, making an anti-suit injunction application based on an arbitration clause is a simple application. There was ample time for the shipowner to do so, and there was no credible evidence to explain why that could not be done.
In Essar Shipping, proceedings were issued by the cargo interests against the ship owner and charterer on 29 September 2014 (§24 of judgment) and the time bar was expiring on January 2015 (§61). The court held that the anti-suit injunction proceedings should have been instituted no later than the end of November 2014 in the absence of some good reason to the contrary (§61).
Comity
Comity consideration is closely associated with delay. The Judge took into account that: (a) The jurisdictional challenge by the shipowner had been considered and ruled upon by 2 levels of Mainland court; (b) The Mainland courts would likely regard this application by the shipowner as “an intrusion or obstruction of the judicial sovereignty of the Chinese courts”; (c) The QMC had “accepted” the Mainland Proceedings, which involved a thorough examination of the bank’s claim in respect of, inter alia, its factual basis and cause(s) of action pursuant to Article 119 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China.
There are much useful guidance to be found in the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Ecobank:
“ 122. … An injunction is an equitable remedy. Before granting it the court must consider whether it is appropriate to do so having regard to all relevant considerations, which will include the extent to which the respondent has incurred expense prior to any application being made, the interests of third parties, including, in particular, the foreign court, and the effect of making such an order in relation to what has happened before it was made. … 126. Moreover the prejudice or detriment which would be involved in Ecobank allowing the proceedings to continue without seeking injunctive relief and then securing an injunction would not have been limited to Mr Tanoh. It extends to third parties involved in the litigation and, most importantly, the foreign courts which, in the present case, have held hearings and produced judgments of considerable length which are obviously the product of much labour. … 129. Further the tenor of modern authorities is that an applicant should act promptly and claim injunctive relief at an early stage; and should not adopt an attitude of waiting to see what the foreign court decides. In The Angelic Grace Leggatt LJ said that it would be patronising and the reverse of comity for the English court to decline to grant injunctive relief until it was apparent whether the foreign court was going to uphold the objection to its exercising jurisdiction and only do so if and when if failed to do so. Whilst those observations related to the approach of the court it seems to me that they are a guide to what should be the approach of a would-be applicant for anti-suit or anti-enforcement relief. 130. The proposition that delay in this field is immaterial in the absence of prejudice and that there is necessarily no prejudice if the respondent is aware of the challenge to the jurisdiction of the foreign court which is being pursued there would have curious consequences. Firstly it would revolutionise the approach that has previously been taken in respect of the need for applicants to act promptly. Secondly it would mean that applicants could have two bites at the cherry. They could, without seeking or threatening any injunctive relief in this country, resist the foreign proceedings on the ground that the issue should be arbitrated and, provided they had not submitted to the jurisdiction, they could then, if the challenge failed, seek an anti-enforcement injunction. The impunity which Mance J had thought “never [to have]been the law” or something very like it would have arrived. 132. Comity has a warm ring. It is important to analyse what it means. We are not here concerned with judicial amour propre but with the operation of systems of law. Courts around the free world endeavour to do justice between citizens in accordance with applicable laws as expeditiously as they can with the resources available to them. This is an exercise in the fulfilment of which judges ought to be comrades in arms. The burdens imposed on courts are well known: long lists, size of cases, shortages of judges, expanding waiting times, and competing demands on resources. The administration of justice and the interests of litigants and of courts is usually prejudiced by late attempts to change course or to terminate the voyage. If successful they often mean that time, effort, and expense, often considerable, will have been wasted both by the parties and the courts and others. Comity between courts, and indeed considerations of public policy, require, where possible, the avoidance of such waste. 133. Injunctive relief may be sought (a) before any foreign proceedings have begun; (b) once they have begun; (c) within a relatively short time afterwards; (d) when the pleadings are complete; (e) thereafter but before the trial starts; (f) in the course of the trial; (g) after judgment. The fact that at some stage the foreign court has ruled in favour of its own jurisdiction is not per se a bar to an anti-suit injunction: see AES. But, as each stage is reached more will have been wasted by the abandonment of proceedings which compliance with an anti-suit injunction would bring about. That being so, the longer an action continues without any attempt to restrain it the less likely a court is to grant an injunction and considerations of comity have greater force. 134. Whilst a desire to avoid offence to a foreign court, or to appear to interfere with it, is no longer a powerful a consideration as it may previously have been, it is not a consideration without relevance. A foreign court may justifiably take objection to an approach under which an injunction, which will (if obeyed) frustrate all that has gone before, may be granted however late an application is made (provided the person enjoined knew from an early stage that objection was taken to the proceedings). Such an objection is not based on the need to avoid offense to individual judges (who are made of sterner stuff) but on the sound basis that to allow such an approach is not a sensible method of conducting curial business.”
Applying the above dicta to the case in question, whilst the Judge did not take the view that the Mainland Proceedings were too far advanced, if the Judge were wrong in holding that delay could be a stand-alone ground for declining the application in question, the Judge would have no hesitation in rejecting the same given the delay in the case in question coupled with the comity considerations. In particular, the Judge could not see how it could be right for the shipowner to blow hot and cold with the jurisdictional challenge in the Mainland depending on the outcome.
Prejudice to the bank
The Judge had already held that the bank had failed to act reasonably in failing to preserve its right to sue in the contractual forum. The first limb of the serious prejudice argument (expiration of the Limitation Period) could not stand.
As regards the loss of security, the Judge agreed with the shipowner that the court has the power to impose condition in granting an injunction. Therefore, where the justice of the case required, the court might impose a condition whereby the Guarantee would be preserved.
In the premises, the Judge would not decline the application in question on the ground of serious prejudice to the bank.
Conclusions
For the reasons stated above, the OS was dismissed with an order nisi that the costs of and occasioned by the same be to the bank, with a certificate for 2 counsel.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or you would like to have a copy of the Judgment.
23/F, Excel Centre, 483A Castle Peak Road, Lai Chi Kok, Kowloon, Hong Kong 香港九龍荔枝角青山道483A卓匯中心23樓 Tel: 2299 5566 Fax: 2866 7096 E-mail: gm@smicsl.com Website: www.sun-mobility.com A MEMBER OF THE HONG KONG CONFEDERATION OF INSURANCE BROKERS 香港保險顧問聯會會員
The 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 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]
While the MOL Comfort incident was a disaster widely talked about among forwarders, all who suffered loss without exception will try whatever means to recover their losses down the line wherever the legal regimes permit.
The Hong Kong 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]
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]
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.
There are three ways of fulfilling the deposit requirement of the Ministry of Transport (“MOT”) in the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) for your NVOCC license.
The High Court of Hong Kong issued a Judgment on 3/2/2012 concerning which currency (US$ or Euro) should be the proper one for the cargo owners in a shipment to claim against the forwarder for compensation in a cargo damage case. [HCAJ 152/2010]
The 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]
We have received a lot of cargo claims from our forwarder clients in the recent months. In this issue, we would like to discuss in general how the forwarders should handle the cargo claims.
The English High Court issued a Judgment on 2/4/2014 holding the Hague Visby Rules instead of the Hague Rules (as incorporated by a Paramount Clause) to apply to a shipment ex Belgium. [Case No: 2012 Folio 102, 2014 EWHC 971 Comm, 2014 WL 1219313]
As reported in our Chans advice/170 dated 27/2/2015, the English High Court on 14/10/2014 held CSAV’s bill of lading’s English jurisdiction clause as an exclusive jurisdiction clause. On 23/4/2015, the English Court of Appeal issued its Judgment reaching the same conclusion. [Neutral Citation No: 2015 EWCA Civ 401, Case No: A3/2014/3584]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 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]
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 Chans advice/215, we reported that the Hong Kong High Court refused Changhong Group’s application to stay the Hong Kong proceedings; and in Chans advice/234, we reported that the Court of Final Appeal dismissed Changhong Group’s application for leave to appeal. On 7 April 2022, the Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision dealing with Changhong Group’s action to re-litigate its stay application. [HCAJ 3/2018] [2022 HKCFI 920]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a 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]
This continues the Q&A in our off-line real seminar on Uncollected and Undelivered Cargo on 28 May 2024. Participants were keen to know more about seaway bills, how war plays in insurance? How modes of transport differ mis-delivery claims handling? What is insurers’ attitude towards transloading claims? And finally, why mis-delivery and uncollected cargo claims deserve special attention. SMIC deals with similar questions daily. Each case varies in its cause, and therefore healing recipe differs. But if you are conversant with fundamentals. They could be simple.
The 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.
Against the post-Covid tide, we ran an off-line real seminar on Uncollected and Undelivered Cargo on 28 May 2024. Attendance could not be compared with any webinars but the number of enthusiastic questions in the Q&A session reflected the demand for transport liability issue solutions. For the sake of recapitulations and sharing the Q&A among the Chan Advice readership, we like to report the Q&A in two issues. We welcome any other questions you may have on the following.
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 15 March 2021 converting a domestic Mareva injunction into a worldwide Mareva injunction in a shipowner’s freight and demurrage claim against a charterer. [HCMP 1190/2020] [2021 HKCFI 680]
The Hong Kong 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 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 Chans advice/142 dated 31/10/2012 that the High Court of Hong Kong held the forwarder liable for cargo misdelivery without production of original bills of lading? The High Court of Hong Kong issued another Judgment on 4/12/2012 dealing with the interest and costs. [HCCL 20/2011 & HCCL 21/2011]
The Hong Kong 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 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 Judgment on 21/7/2014 discharging a Mareva injunction in relation to a cargo misdelivery claim of about US$12 million. [HCA 2368/2012]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 21 July 2023 in relation to a case that an aircraft (worth at least USD 80 million) and its cargoes were destroyed by a fire caused by the goods of chlorine dioxide disinfection tablets. [HCA 837/2022] [2023 HKCFI 1896]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a judgment on 12/4/2016 to dismiss a cargo owner’s action in respect of breaking a barge owner’s tonnage limitation. [HCAJ 178/2014]
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 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 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]
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.
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision As To Costs on 5 December 2024 ordering a shipowner (which lost in an anti-suit injunction court case) to pay the winning party’s (a cargo owner) costs on an indemnity basis. HCCT 66/2024 [2024 HKCFI 3511]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a decision on 31 May 2022 ordering a South Korean shipowner to provide a Hong Kong shipowner with security for costs in the amount of HK$600,000 in relation to a ship collision case that happened in Hong Kong during the super typhoon Hato in August 2017. [HCAJ 80-85/2019] [2022 HKCFI 1631]
The High Court of Hong Kong issued a Decision on 15 November 2018 concerning the tragic collision between the cargo vessel CF Crystal and the tanker Sanchi, which happened on 6 January 2018 and led to the death of all the officers and crew of the Sanchi. [HCAJ3/2018] [2018HKCFI2474]
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 District Court issued a Judgment on 28/4/2014 dismissing a seller’s cargo misdelivery claim of US$122,302.80 against a freight forwarder and holding the seller liable to pay the outstanding freight charges of US$28,855 to the forwarder. [DCCJ 344/2010]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a 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 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 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]
Following the issue of Chans advice last month, we would like to report the latest decision issued by the court over this theft case. On 17 January 2023, the Hong Kong High Court dismissed Mr Ma’s application to withdraw HK$1.5 million out of his frozen assets for paying the legal costs for his appeal against conviction in theft. [HCA 619/2016] [2023 HKCFI 197]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 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 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 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 English High Court issued a Judgment on 31/7/2015 dismissing a cargo owner’s conversion claim US $565,891.58 against a shipowner in an uncollected cargo case. [(2015) EWHC 2288 (Comm), (2015) 2 C.L.C. 415]
In our Chans advice/244, we reported the Hong Kong High Court case [HCA937/2016] [2021 HKCFI 2310] that the forwarder was held liable to pay nominal damages of HKD1,000 to the shipper in the cargo misdelivery claim of USD1,299,189.87. On 20 October 2021, the Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on Costs holding the shipper liable to pay the costs of the forwarder. [2021 HKCFI 3021]
In 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.
Remember our Chans advice/112 that the Hong Kong High Court held the Rotterdam terminal liable to pay the cargo value of €950,071.20 for the misdelivery of one container of Sony Play Stations? On 2/4/2013, Judge To of the Hong Kong High Court issued another Judgment holding that the forwarder was entitled to limit its liability to US$24,392 in accordance with its B/L terms. [HCAJ 106/2008]
The English Commercial Court issued a Judgment on 7/11/2012 holding a carrier liable for US$458,655.69 owing to its issuing 13 clean Bills of Lading for a consignment of steel pipes which had some pre-shipment damage. [2012 EWHC 3124 (Comm)]
The Hong Kong 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]
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]
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 Court of Appeal issued a Judgment on 17/7/2014 holding a Hong Kong forwarder liable to pay US$852,339 plus costs and interest (as damages for conversion) to an Indian bank in an air cargo misdelivery case. [CACV 282/2012]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a 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 22/8/2016 dealing with a case that a forwarder wanted to strike out a cargo misdelivery claim on the ground that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action. [HCCL 5/2015]
The Hong Kong 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 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 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 issued a Judgment on 18/12/2014 in connection with a cargo misdelivery claim of US$27,835,000 involving also anti-suit injunction and worldwide freezing order issued by the English Court. [CACV 243/2014 & HCMP 1449/2014]
In 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]
Does the law require forklift trucks to have the third party insurance of motor vehicles? The Hong Kong High Court’s Judgment [Magistracy Appeal No 241 of 1996] dated 2/5/1996 explained the legal principles to answer this question.
The Hong Kong Court of Appeal issued a Judgment on 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 ruling on 2/12/2016 dealing with a shipowner’s interrogatory application in relation to an uncollected cargo case. [HCAJ 118/2015]
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]
On 12/4/2017, the Hong Kong High Court dismissed an application made by a cargo owner for stay of proceedings commenced by two forwarders in relation to an uncollected cargo case. [HCA 1927/2016]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a 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 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]
In the issue of our Chans advice last month, we talked about the major provisions of the Montreal Convention (which is for the international carriage of goods by air). In this issue, we would like to discuss the major terms of an equally important international convention for the international carriage of goods by sea, viz. the Hague Visby Rules.
The Hong Kong 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 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]
In Chans advice/14 dated 28/2/2002, we discussed this topic 15 years ago. In its Judgment dated 16/10/2017, the District Court of New South Wales in Australia had to deal with, inter alia, a malpractice that a forwarder issued its own house B/Ls but signed off with as agent for China Ocean Shipping, Pacific International Lines, Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Limited or Orient Overseas Container Line without authority. [2017 NSWDC 279]
The Hong Kong 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 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]
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.
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]
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 High Court of Hong Kong issued a Decision on 23 May 2018 allowing a shipowner to be represented by 2 different firms of solicitors (one appointed by its hull underwriters and the other appointed by its P&I Club). [HCAJ84/2017] [2018HKCFI1136]
The Hong Kong High Court 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 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 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]
Remember Chans advice/142 and Chans advice/145 that the High Court of Hong Kong held the forwarder liable for cargo misdelivery without production of original bills of lading? The Court of Appeal of Hong Kong issued a Judgment on 31/1/2013 dismissing the forwarder’s applications for an extension of time to appeal. [HCMP 2366/2012 & HCMP 2367/2012]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a 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]
Remember our Chans advice/171 of 31/3/2015 reporting that the Hong Kong Court of Appeal discharged the Mareva injunctions against Hin-Pro? The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal issued a Judgment on 14/11/2016 reversing the Court of Appeal’s Judgment of 11/3/2015. [FACA No. 1 of 2016]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 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]
In our last issue of Chans advice/253, the Hong Kong District Court’s judgment dated 26 April 2022 mentioned a case authority of China Ocean v Mitrans Shipping. We would like to discuss this judgment dated 11 July 1995 of the Hong Kong Court of Appeal in our Chans advice this month. [1995 No. 71 Civil]
The 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’s Judgment dated 11/4/2008 explained some legal principles relating to whether indemnity claims are allowed by in rem legal actions against vessels. [CACV 257/2007]
The High Court of Hong Kong issued a Judgment on 21/7/2014, in which some legal principles relating to the in rem jurisdiction of the Court to arrest vessels were explained. [HCAJ 241/2009]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 16 January 2019 dealing with the appeal of the wasted costs’ case reported by our Chans advice/214. [HCA1919/2016] [2019HKCFI127]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a 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 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]
According to the Hague-Visby Rules, the carrier shall be discharged of all liability in respect of the cargoes unless suit is brought within one year of their delivery or the date when they should have been delivered. The English High Court issued a Judgment on 22nd July 2025 explaining the meaning of “suit”. [2025 EWHC 1878 (Comm)]
The VGM laws have come into operation in Hong Kong since 1/7/2016. They are mainly contained in Section 3 and Section 3A of the Merchant Shipping (Safety) (Carriage of Cargoes and Oil Fuel) Regulation (Chapter 369AV) as follows:
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 5/8/2015 holding that a shipment of formula milk powder without the legally required export licence should not be forfeited. [HCMA171/2015]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 23/12/2013 dealing with an application for security for costs in relation to a ship sinking case. [HCAJ 213/2009]
We refer to our Chans advice/251 last month reporting the Hong Kong High Court’s decision to sentence Mr Ma (Hyundai Hong Kong’s former deputy general manager) to 15 years’ imprisonment. The High Court issued another Judgment on 27 April 2022 holding Mr Ma liable to compensate HK$387,655,303.70 to Hyundai Hong Kong. [HCA 619/2016] [2022 HKCFI 1153]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 25 February 2019 dealing with Changhong Group’s delayed application for leave to appeal in relation to the collision case reported in our Chans advice/218 and Chans advice/215. [HCAJ3/2018, 2019HKCFI542]
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.
More and more junior staff of the banks insist all the Bills of Lading to be signed and issued with the above remark “As agent for the Carrier”. This is of course right if the concerned Carrier does not have its own office in the place of issuing the Bill of Lading and therefore instruct its agent there to issue the Carrier’s Bill of Lading.
The amendment to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) 1974 Chapter VI, Regulation 2 in respect of the verified gross mass of a container carrying cargo (laden container) is for entry into force globally on 1 July 2016.
The Hong Kong Court of Appeal issued a Judgment on 20 September 2019 declining to give leave of appeal to Changhong Group in relation to the High Court Decision dated 29 January 2019 (reported in our Chans advice/221). [CAMP197/2019] [2019HKCA1061]
In Chans advice/215, we reported the High Court of Hong Kong refused Changhong Group’s application to stay the Hong Kong action. The Court of Appeal also subsequently dismissed Changhong Group’s appeal. On 13 July 2020, the Court of Final Appeal finally dismissed Changhong Group’s application for leave to appeal. [FAMV No. 34 of 2020] [2020 HKCFA 24]
The Ningbo Maritime Court issued a Judgment on 25/5/2016, and dismissed a cargo insurer’s (PICC Ningbo) recovery claim of USD25,238.40 against Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd (“MOSK”) in relation to the vessel MOL Comfort sinking into the Indian Ocean on 17/6/2013.
We reported in our Chans advice/252 that the Hong Kong High Court held Hyundai Hong Kong’s ex-Deputy General Manager (Mr Ma) liable to compensate HK$387,655,303.70 to Hyundai Hong Kong in the case of his theft of his employer’s money. On 23 December 2022, the Hong Kong High Court issued a decision ordering a sum of HK$500,000 (which was deposited by Mr Ma as bail money) to be released to Hyundai Hong Kong in partial satisfaction of Mr Ma’s judgment debt. [HCA 619/2016] [2022 HKCFI 3798]
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 District Court of Hong Kong issued a Judgment on 21/4/2011 dismissing a forwarder’s cargo indemnity claim of US$46,201.81 against a trucking company. [DCCJ 2092/2009]
The High Court of Hong Kong issued a Judgment on 22/5/2017 holding that the District Court has jurisdiction to determine bill of lading and bailment cases. [HCAJ 150/2014]
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]
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 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 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 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]
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 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 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 11 January 2019 dealing with a dispute of US$335,858.31 between a bunker supplier and a ship agent. [HCA119/2015] [2019HKCFI57]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a judgment on 30/4/2015 dealing with the legal principles in respect of the order of priorities in distributing the sale proceeds of an arrested ship. [HCAJ 129/2013]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 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]
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]
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 limit of liability for international carriage of cargoes by air under the Montreal Convention has been revised from 19 SDR/Kg to 22 SDR/Kg of the gross weight of the cargoes effective from 28 December 2019. We have received many enquiries from freight forwarders about changing their house Air Waybills’ terms to cope with the new limit of liability. We would like to take this opportunity to discuss some essential terms in house Air Waybills.
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 22 January 2021 dealing with an appeal against a Small Claims Tribunal’s award concerning a dispute over a container terminal’s storage charges. [HCSA 44/2020] [2021 HKCFI 200]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 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].
SMIC has finally jumped on the bandwagon of the cyber media rush by its presence on the Facebook. We would have done this for a long time had it not been for the daily chores and that we were then not too convinced of its value in the commercial world. Thereafter, it becomes obvious that more and more firms are capitalizing on this new media; and unlike the old economies where information flow was imperfect, consumers of the new economies tend to prefer looking up for information by themselves from the web, or augmenting information they are given.
The Hong Kong Court of Appeal issued a Judgment on 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]
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.
