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]
Introduction
The “ASIAN ATLAS” (“the Ship”) was arrested by the Plaintiff (Northrop Grumman Ship Systems Inc) on 11 April 2007. Two affidavits in support were filed. The endorsement on the Writ in rem pleaded two heads of claim : ‑
“(a) Damages and/or an indemnity and/or contribution against any and all liability, loss, damage and/or expense suffered and/or to be suffered by the Plaintiffs in connection with the collision between the vessel, ‘M/V ASIAN ATLAS’, when it was named ‘M/V AMERICAN CORMORANT’ (‘the Vessel’), and a subsurface launchway owned by the Plaintiff as the Vessel entered the harbour in Pascagoula, Mississippi on 15 August 2004, and/or in consequence of claims made and/or to be made against the Plaintiffs arising out of and/or in connection with the aforesaid collision, insofar as the collision was caused or contributed to by the negligence of the compulsory pilot of the Vessel at the material time; (b) Damages for damage caused by the Vessel to the Plaintiff’s subsurface launchway as the Vessel entered the harbour in Pascagoula, Mississippi on 15 August 2004;”
For convenience, these two claims were referred to as, respectively, the Indemnity Claim and the Damage Claim.
Following arrest, a Notice of Motion dated 13 April 2007 was taken out by the Defendant, the owners of the Ship, seeking an order setting aside the Warrant of Arrest issued by the Court on the ground that (a) the Indemnity Claim did not give rise to a statutory right in rem under section 12A(2)(e) of the HCO; and (b) insofar as the Damage Claim was concerned, there had been a material non‑disclosure of a relevant fact and there was no evidence that any damage had been suffered.
On 2 May 2007, the Ship was released from arrest upon payment into court by the Defendant (“the shipowner”) of US$4.5 million. The amount of US$4 million of this was attributable to the Indemnity Claim, and that the balance of US$500,000 was referable to the Damage Claim.
The setting aside motion was heard by the High Court on 31 July 2007. An ex tempore judgment was delivered the same day, in which the High Court dismissed the shipowner’s application. On 11 April 2008, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal with costs, set aside the Warrant of Arrest and ordered the payment out to the shipowner of the monies paid into court as security for the Plaintiff’s claim.
Facts
On 15 August 2004, the Ship (then named “AMERICAN CORMORANT”), while navigating the Pascagoula River in Mississippi, collided with a submerged submarine launchway belonging to the Plaintiff (“the launchway owner”), as a result of which, damage was caused to the Ship.
Proceedings were instituted in 2006 in the US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (Southern Division) by the then owners and operators of the Ship against, among others, the launchway owner and the compulsory pilots who had been on board the Ship (the compulsory pilots were provided by the Pascagoula Bar Pilots Association). The former owners and operators of the Ship were Cormorant Shipholding Corp (“Cormorant”) and Osprey Ship Management Inc (“Osprey”).
There was a change of ownership in the Ship in February 2005 when she was sold to a company called Master View Co Ltd. Master View in turn sold the Ship in June 2005 to Asian Atlas Ltd (the Defendant). The claim made in the US proceedings by Cormorant and Osprey was for damages for the repairs that were carried out to the Ship, and also the loss of hire and earnings (she was on charter) for the period she was undergoing repairs and therefore out of service.
In October 2006, the launchway owner filed an in rem claim in the US proceedings against the Ship, claiming an indemnity in the event it were to be held liable in the main action to Cormorant and Osprey. The basis of the claim for an indemnity was that it was alleged the casualty was caused by the fault of the compulsory pilots on board the Ship (for which casualty, the launchway owner alleged, under US law, responsibility therefor lay with the Ship).
The indemnity sought to cover the situation where the launchway owner might have to pay for the pilots’ share of liability to Cormorant and Osprey. In other words, where, for example, it was to be held in the main action in the US that both the launchway owner and the pilots were liable to Cormorant and Osprey and that their respective contributions were, say, 40% and 60%, Cormorant and Osprey might then look to the launchway owner to pay the entirety of the damages awarded if, for any reason, they could not obtain any satisfaction from the pilots. In such a situation, the launchway owner would have to pay the damages awarded to the full extent, even though its blameworthiness was only 40%. This was effectively the Indemnity Claim as made in the proceedings in Hong Kong.
Service on the Ship was not possible in the US proceedings. Then came the usual worldwide search for the Ship. It was only when she came to Hong Kong that service in rem could be effected, and the arrest consequently made.
The issues
There were essentially two issues : ‑
(1) In relation to the Indemnity Claim, it was contended by the shipowner that this claim did not fall within any of the established heads of claim attracting the in rem admiralty jurisdiction of the Court. Specifically, it did not fall within section 12A(2)(e) of the HCO. The relevant damage was damage to the Ship herself. This simply did not constitute, in the words of the section, “damage done by a ship”. The relevant damage was the potential liability of the launchway owner in the US proceedings (for which the indemnity was sought), and this was not caused by the Ship either. (2) In relation to the Damage Claim, this element did fall within section 12A(2)(e). However, there was no evidence that any loss had been caused to the launchway owner, certainly no loss that had been quantified. Moreover, at the ex parte stage (when the Warrant of Arrest was sought by the launchway owner) there had been a material non‑disclosure of the fact that the launchway owner’s submerged submarine launchway had not been used for a period of 36 years prior to the incident. This, the shipowner argued, ought to result in the Warrant of Arrest being set aside, or at the very least in the amount of security ordered in relation to the claim (US$500,000) being reduced.
The High Court rejected both arguments. The High Court was of the view that the Indemnity Claim did come within the ambit of section 12A(2)(e) and that, in relation to the Damage Claim, there was no material non‑disclosure, and that there was evidence that the sum of US$500,000 was not excessive. Hence the appeal.
The First Issue : Ambit of Section 12A(2)(e) of the HCO
The section 12A(2)(e) type of claim is a statutory right in rem. If the Indemnity Claim came within this definition, it also would give rise to a maritime lien on the Ship (in the classic sense and not just a statutory right in rem). This was important in view of the requirements of section 12B(3) of the HCO, which allows an action in rem to be brought against the relevant ship where a maritime lien is involved notwithstanding the absence of the coincidence of ownership both at the time of arrest and the time when the cause of action arose as required for other maritime claims giving rise to mere statutory rights in rem (the section 12B(4) requirement).
Section 12A of the HCO sets out the “Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Court”. In it are enumerated the specific types of claims, questions and proceedings which would engage this jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. This is a jurisdiction that has unique facets (perhaps the principal one being the action in rem carrying with it the right to arrest ships); among the types of claims covered include claims concerning ships in relation to ownership, mortgages, damage received by ships, cargo claims, necessaries provided to a ship. All these claims, questions and proceedings are in connection with ships, but rather than merely use a wide, general phrase such as ‘claims, questions or proceedings in connection with ships’, the Ordinance sets out specific types of claims, questions or proceedings.
Section 12A(2)(e) states that one of the claims that will attract the admiralty jurisdiction of the Court is “ any claim for damage done by a ship”. The type of claim referred to in this subsection is in respect of “damage caused by a ship”. Of course, a ship can only cause damage through the wrongful acts or omissions of persons (such as her master and crew), but nevertheless the essence of the type of claim is that the relevant damage must be caused by something done physically or directly by the ship herself in the course of her navigation or management. By definition, such damage must be caused to persons or objects external to the Ship.
A brief reference to the relevant authorities may also assist : ‑
(1) In Currie v M’Knight [1897] AC 97 (House of Lords), at 101, Lord Halsbury LC referred to the ship against which a maritime lien was claimed having to be the
“…instrument of mischief, and that in order to establish the liability of the ship itself to the maritime lien claimed some act of navigation of the ship itself should either mediately or immediately be the cause of the damage.”
(2) Lord Watson in the same case said this at 106 : ‑
“I think it is of the essence of the rule that the damage in respect of which a maritime lien is admitted must be either the direct result or the natural consequence of a wrongful act or manoeuvre of the ship to which it attaches. Such an act or manoeuvre is necessarily due to the want of skill or negligence of the persons by whom the vessel is navigated; but it is, in the language of maritime law, attributed to the ship because the ship in their negligent or unskilful hands is the instrument which causes the damage.”
(3) In The Eschersheim [1976] 1 WLR 430 (House of Lords), Lord Diplock said at 438 F‑H (in an obiter passage but one with has consistently been applied) : ‑
“The figurative phrase ‘damage done by a ship’ is a term of art in maritime law whose meaning is well settled by authority. (The Vera Cruz (No.2) (1884) 9 P.D. 96; Currie v M’Knight [1897] A.C. 97.) To fall within the phrase not only must the damage be the direct result or natural consequence of something done by those engaged in the navigation of the ship but the ship itself must be the actual instrument by which the damage was done. The commonest case is that of collision, which is specifically mentioned in the Convention: but physical contact between the ship and whatever object sustains the damage is not essential – a ship may negligently cause a wash by which some other vessel or some property on shore is damaged.”
(4) In The Rama [1996] 2 LL. L. Rep. 281, Clarke J referred to the foregoing and other authorities, and summarized the position in the following way at 293(2) : ‑
“In my judgment, the cases show that to be ‘damage done by a ship’ and thus to qualify as giving rise to a maritime lien three criteria must be satisfied: 1. the damage must be caused by something done by those engaged in the navigation or management of the ship in a physical sense; 2. the ship must be the actual or noxious instrument by which the damage is done; and 3. the damage must be sustained by a person or property external to the ship.”
(5) Clarke J also said that the relevant damage must be caused by some physical act of the ship resulting from her negligent navigation or management : at 294(2) and 295(2).
While a physical act on the part of the ship ‑ “the actual or noxious instrument by which the damage is done” ‑ is required, the damage or loss that is caused need not be purely physical. Economic loss may come within section 12A(2)(e). Where a ship, having been navigated in a dangerous manner, drove away another ship from fishing grounds with the result that financial loss was caused to that other ship, this would fall within the provision : ‑ see The Dagmara and Ama Antxine [1988] 1 LL. L. Rep. 431.
Nor must it be that the damage or loss claimed is directly caused by the act of the ship, in that consequential loss (that is, loss consequent on the damage actually caused by the ship) may be claimed. For example, where Ship A collides with Ship B as a result of faulty navigation on the part of Ship A, a claim can be made not only for the actual damage sustained by Ship B (say, the cost of repairs), but a claim may also be made for an indemnity in respect of a liability sustained by the owners of Ship B to third party interests (say, a claim made in respect of cargo on board Ship B which had been damaged or delivered late as a result of Ship B being out of service consequent on the collision).
A further example of where an indemnity for consequential damage can be claimed is provided by the facts of The Beatanavis, unreported, 13 October 1999, Queen’s Bench Division (Admiralty Court). That case involved an indemnity sought by the owners of Ship A against Ship B (which had collided with Ship A) in terms of the potential liability of Ship A to Ship C (with which Ship A had in turn collided). David Steel J held that this situation came within the equivalent English provision to our section 12A(2)(e).
In principle therefore, there is no reason why a claim for an indemnity to third parties or other consequential damage cannot be included for the purposes of section 12A(2)(e), but it remains essential that such a claim be consequent upon some damage that has been actually caused by the relevant ship as the instrument of such damage. It will not suffice for there to be loss or damage caused merely through negligent navigation if the ship herself was not the actual instrument of the damage. In The Rama, Clarke J proffered two examples where the equivalent of section 12A(2)(e) was not engaged : where injury to a person on board a ship was caused through negligent management of that ship (hatchway covered only by tarpaulin) : see 293(2) referring to The Theta [1894] P 280; damage to cargo on board a ship is not damage done by the carrying ship : at 294(1) referring to The Victoria (1887) 12 PD 105. See also : ‑ Thomas : Maritime Liens at paragraph 178 and Meeson : Admiralty Jurisdiction and Practice (3rd edition) at paragraph 2.55‑2.59.
The Indemnity Claim was a claim for an indemnity that would arise in the event that the launchway owner became liable in the US proceedings to Cormorant and Osprey in respect of the negligence of the compulsory pilots. However, the loss giving rise to the claim for an indemnity would not have been caused by the Ship as the actual or noxious instrument. Nor would such loss be consequent upon any loss or damage caused by the Ship as the actual or noxious instrument of damage. The loss to the launchway owner in such a situation would have been caused by, and be directly attributable to, the negligence or fault of the pilots alone. The Ship would have caused no loss or damage; indeed the loss or damage suffered by the launchway owner would originate from the damage to the Ship herself. Accordingly, it seemed extremely odd to suggest that the damage suffered by the Ship was caused by the Ship herself.
The Indemnity Claim might also be analyzed by reference to the three requirements set out in The Rama : ‑
(1) The first requirement was satisfied in that the relevant damage could be said to have been caused by the compulsory pilots (for whose acts or omissions, according to the launchway owner, the Ship was responsible). (2) The second requirement was not satisfied. The damage was not caused directly or indirectly by the Ship as the actual or noxious instrument. It would have been caused by the fault of the compulsory pilots. (3) Nor was the third requirement satisfied. The damage was sustained by the Ship herself. It was this damage that led to the possible situation where the launchway owner might have to be liable to the former owner and operator of the Ship (and for which the launchway owner claimed an indemnity).
The launchway owner sought to argue that all three requirements were satisfied. The launchway owner submitted that the relevant damage was the loss (or potential loss) of the launchway owner in particularly having to be responsible to Cormorant and Osprey for the liability of the pilots, rather than damage to the Ship herself. Therefore, the launchway owner argued, the third requirement was satisfied : the damage had been suffered by a person (viz, the launchway owner) external to the Ship. The Court of Appeal doubted this was correct. The relevant damage was the damage to the Ship, and it was this damage that would lead to the indemnity claimed by the launchway owner. Even if the Court of Appeal was wrong, and the relevant damage was the loss to the launchway owner, the second requirement certainly was not satisfied; it could not be said that the Ship herself was the actual or noxious instrument which had physically caused this damage. The cause of the damage would only be the fault or neglect of the pilots, not the Ship.
The launchway owner also suggested that it was enough that the claim arose because it was in connection with the Ship. In other words, but for the Ship, there would be no loss. Plainly this was insufficient. The admiralty jurisdiction of the Court is engaged when one of the specific situations set out in section 12A applies and not otherwise. It is not engaged simply because there is a claim in connection with a ship.
The launchway owner finally relied upon “the sympathy factor”. In the scenario envisaged, wherein the launchway owner might have to become liable to the former owners and operators of the acts or omissions of the pilots, it would, the launchway owner submitted, be manifestly unfair if an innocent party like the launchway owner should have to shoulder the loss. In the Court of Appeal’s view, this was irrelevant when construing the meaning and ambit of a jurisdictional provision such as section 12A(2)(e). In a nutshell, jurisdiction is jurisdiction : it either exists or it does not. In any event, insofar as sympathy might come into it, the position of the shipowner (the new owners) merited equal consideration.
There is no dispute that as a matter of principle, a claim for an indemnity or consequential loss is possible. However, the critical question to be addressed was whether the Indemnity Claim, when tested against the requirements of section 12A(2)(e), came within it.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeal was of the view that there was no jurisdiction to arrest the Ship in relation to the Indemnity Claim.
The second Issue : the Damage Claim
There was no dispute that this claim did come within section 12A(2)(e) : the alleged damage was to the submerged submarine launchway, and this was as a direct result of a physical act of the Ship herself.
The problem that faced the launchway owner, however, was whether it had suffered any damage at all. US$500,000 of the amount paid into court was said to reflect the quantum of this claim. However, there was no evidence whatsoever in support of this figure or any other figure. The affidavits leading to the arrest of the Ship stated that full particulars of the damages in relation to this claim would be provided when available. They never were. The Court of Appeal accepted that in cases where there had been a recent casualty or where other good reasons existed, it might not always be practicable to provide a ready and immediate assessment of the quantum of loss at the arrest stage, but in the case in question, the casualty occurred in August 2004, and legal proceedings in the US had been afoot since at least 2006. Yet the best that the launchway owner had been able to do was for its US attorney to depose in an affidavit that he had been informed by the launchway owner’s engineer that the cost of repairing the launchway would exceed US$100,000. No sources or basis were provided in support of this bland statement (as required by RHC O.41, r.5(2)) and no explanation was given as to why more details could not have been provided.
Moreover, on the facts, it would appear that prior to the casualty, the launchway had not been in use for 36 years. The affidavit evidence of the shipowner referred to the testimony that was given by a Sector Director of the launchway owner in the US proceedings. The relevant part of the testimony was as follows : ‑
“ Q : Right. Now, when I think of marine ways I think of like a railway. A : Uh‑huh. Q : With cross ties and something in the middle to support the keel of a vessel. Is that what these marine ways look like on land? A : You’ve got me. I don’t know. Q : You don’t know? A : No. Let me just clarify that. By the time I had come to work at Northrop Grumman they were not using these anymore. We don’t use them. We don’t launch ships that way, we haven’t since probably 1970. Q : So for 36 years these marine ways have been obsolete?”
It was this fact (namely that the launchway had not been in use for 36 years) that led the shipowner to allege in the application in question that there had been material non‑disclosure in the application for a warrant of arrest. The Court of Appeal accepted that in the context of an application for a warrant of arrest, the requisite disclosure of material facts relate primarily to questions of jurisdiction and not to merits : see The Tat Yau 8 [1998] 4 HKC 108, at 114H‑115E (Stone J); Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2008 Vol.1 at paragraph 75/5/11. In the case in question, however, given the inability of the launchway owner to quantify any damage, if the Court had been informed at the ex parte stage that in fact the launchway had not been in use for 36 years, it may well have taken the view that no real claim existed in the first place.
In the Court of Appeal’s view, there was material non‑disclosure in the case in question. The admiralty jurisdiction of the Court is often regarded as draconian; the arrest of a ship carries with it considerable inconvenience, if not financial loss, for which redress is not always easy, and it is precisely for this reason that considerable care must be taken to ensure that the affidavit leading the warrant of arrest must properly depose to all material facts which are said to justify the exercise of this particular jurisdiction. For these reasons, the Court of Appeal was of the view that in relation to the Damage Claim, the admiralty jurisdiction of the Court should not have been engaged.
Conclusion
It was for the above reasons that the appeal was allowed.
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
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]
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 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 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 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 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 this issue, we would like to continue with the case (CSAV v Hin-Pro) mentioned in our monthly newsletter of Chans advice/169 two months ago. The Hong Kong Court of Appeal issued its Judgment on 11/3/2015 discharging the Mareva Injunctions and the receivership orders granted by DHCJ Saunders against Hin-Pro and Soar. [CACV 243/2014]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 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 English High Court issued a Judgment on 2/4/2014 holding the Hague Visby Rules instead of the Hague Rules (as incorporated by a Paramount Clause) to apply to a shipment ex Belgium. [Case No: 2012 Folio 102, 2014 EWHC 971 Comm, 2014 WL 1219313]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a decision on 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]
In Chans advice/215, we reported the High Court of Hong Kong refused Changhong Group’s application to stay the Hong Kong action. The Court of Appeal also subsequently dismissed Changhong Group’s appeal. On 13 July 2020, the Court of Final Appeal finally dismissed Changhong Group’s application for leave to appeal. [FAMV No. 34 of 2020] [2020 HKCFA 24]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a 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 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]
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 Court of Appeal on 1 December 2021 allowed a charterer’s appeal against a High Court’s Decision dated 13 April 2021 (which disallowed the charterer’s charter hire claims of US$234,955 against the shipowner because the High Court was not satisfied the claims were well founded). [CACV 294/2021] [2021 HKCA 1865]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 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 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 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]
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 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 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]
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]
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:
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 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.
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 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]
The High Court of Hong Kong issued a Judgment on 21/7/2014, in which some legal principles relating to the in rem jurisdiction of the Court to arrest vessels were explained. [HCAJ 241/2009]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 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 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.
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 Chans advice/244, we reported the Hong Kong High Court case [HCA937/2016] [2021 HKCFI 2310] that the forwarder was held liable to pay nominal damages of HKD1,000 to the shipper in the cargo misdelivery claim of USD1,299,189.87. On 20 October 2021, the Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on Costs holding the shipper liable to pay the costs of the forwarder. [2021 HKCFI 3021]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a 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]
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 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 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]
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.
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 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]
Our Chans advice/191 reported a Hong Kong High Court’s case concerning a shipping company’s restitution claim against its former deputy general manager (Mr Ma) for HK$387,655,303.70. The latest development of this case is: the Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 1/2/2018 and a Decision on 9/2/2018 holding that Mr Ma was in contempt of Court as a result of his breach of a Mareva Injunction Order and that he be committed to prison for 4 months. [HCMP1115/2017] [2018 HKCFI176] [2018 HKCFI328]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 11 January 2019 dealing with a dispute of US$335,858.31 between a bunker supplier and a ship agent. [HCA119/2015] [2019HKCFI57]
In our last issue of Chans advice/253, the Hong Kong District Court’s judgment dated 26 April 2022 mentioned a case authority of China Ocean v Mitrans Shipping. We would like to discuss this judgment dated 11 July 1995 of the Hong Kong Court of Appeal in our Chans advice this month. [1995 No. 71 Civil]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 5/8/2015 holding that a shipment of formula milk powder without the legally required export licence should not be forfeited. [HCMA171/2015]
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 amendment to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) 1974 Chapter VI, Regulation 2 in respect of the verified gross mass of a container carrying cargo (laden container) is for entry into force globally on 1 July 2016.
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision 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 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]
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 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]
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.
This continues the Q&A in our off-line real seminar on Uncollected and Undelivered Cargo on 28 May 2024. Participants were keen to know more about seaway bills, how war plays in insurance? How modes of transport differ mis-delivery claims handling? What is insurers’ attitude towards transloading claims? And finally, why mis-delivery and uncollected cargo claims deserve special attention. SMIC deals with similar questions daily. Each case varies in its cause, and therefore healing recipe differs. But if you are conversant with fundamentals. They could be simple.
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 11 May 2021 staying a South Korea container terminal’s legal action in Hong Kong with respect to its allision claims of more than US$90,000,000 against the owners of a container ship. [HCAJ 31/2020] [2021 HKCFI 1283]
Following the 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 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 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 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 ruling on 2/12/2016 dealing with a shipowner’s interrogatory application in relation to an uncollected cargo case. [HCAJ 118/2015]
In our Chans advice/169 last month, we mentioned the English Court’s Judgment dated 14/10/2014 holding CSAV’s bill of lading’s English jurisdiction clause to be an exclusive jurisdiction clause. In this issue, let’s look at that English High Court Judgment [2013 Folio No 1248, 2014 EWHC 3632 Comm, 2014 WL 5113447] issued by Justice Cooke in detail.
The Hong Kong High Court issued a 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]
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 District Court issued a Decision on 30 April 2021 dealing with a personal injury case in relation to a container terminal. [DCPI 110/2020] [2021 HKDC 463]
The 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]
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]
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 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 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 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 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]
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 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 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 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 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 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 12/4/2016 to dismiss a cargo owner’s action in respect of breaking a barge owner’s tonnage limitation. [HCAJ 178/2014]
Remember our Chans advice/165 (reporting the Hong Kong Court of Appeal holding the Hong Kong forwarder liable to pay US$852,339 plus costs and interest to the Indian bank in the air cargo misdelivery case)? On 19/5/2016, the Court of Final Appeal dismissed the Hong Kong forwarder’s application for seeking leave to appeal. [FAMV Nos 45 & 52 of 2015]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 30 September 2021 holding a shipowner’s Defences as an abuse of process in a case of unpaid crew wages. [HCAJ 76/2020] [2021 HKCFI 2961] [HCAJ 91/2020]
The 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]
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 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 Court of Appeal issued a Judgment on 18/12/2014 in connection with a cargo misdelivery claim of US$27,835,000 involving also anti-suit injunction and worldwide freezing order issued by the English Court. [CACV 243/2014 & HCMP 1449/2014]
The Hong Kong 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 Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 22 January 2021 dealing with an appeal against a Small Claims Tribunal’s award concerning a dispute over a container terminal’s storage charges. [HCSA 44/2020] [2021 HKCFI 200]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 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 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 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]
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 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 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 High Court issued a judgment on 21/4/2016 and disallowed a cargo owner’s application for summary judgment against a forwarder in connection with a cargo (a diamond) missing claim of US$900,000. [HCCL 10/2015]
What is the difference between a straight bill of lading and an order bill of lading? This can be illustrated in the Wuhan Maritime Court’s Judgment dated 17 September 2019 concerning a cargo misdelivery claim of US$89,838.
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 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 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]
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]
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.
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]
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 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 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/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]
