The 12th annual SMIC seminar on uncollected cargoes pulled some 300 participants to attend with much curiosity for 3 hours in the YMCA Assembly Hall. The accumulated questionmarks and enigmas about the subject matter lurking in the trade were unleashed among the audiences.
In total 32 questions of similar nature but different circumstances were made from the floor. 25 questions needed to be and have subsequently been answered separately by emails. These Q&As are compiled in this issue of Chans Advice for sharing among its readership.
Q1. How to avoid the risk of paying terminal charges arising from the uncollected cargoes?
A1. The terminal storage charges (resulting from the uncollected cargoes) are the actual losses suffered by the carrier. Provided that the terminal’s reasonable storage charges’ invoice is produced and that the carrier’s payment evidence is submitted, the shipper and consignee under the B/L should have the liability to compensate such actual losses to the carrier, and it is difficult for the shipper and consignee to deny liability.
Q2. Can you tell me whether the terminal storage charges, regarding the uncollected cargoes, is insurable?
A2. If the transport liability insurer covers the forwarder for the extra costs arising from uncollected cargoes, the related terminal storage charges should be insured by the insurance policy.
Q3. How to calculate the premium of the transport liability insurance?
A3. The transport liability insurance premium is usually based on many factors e.g. the annual gross freight receipt, the volume of cargoes shipped in terms of tons or TEU per year, the usual types of cargoes carried, the claim history of 3 to 5 years, the usual trading areas, the percentage of CY/CY shipments and CFS/CFS shipments, the percentage of the business as agent and the business as NVOC, any own warehouses, any own trucks…
Q4. HK to LA, USA shipment on FOB HK basis. The freight charges should be paid by the consignee. However, when the shipment arrived at LA, it was learnt that the consignee went bankrupt. Which party should pay for the freight charges (from HK to LA) before the uncollected cargoes can be returned to HK? If the shipper is willing to pay the demurrage charges, is the LA consignee’s forwarding agent also liable to pay some charges?
A4. The shipper asked the carrier to ship the cargoes to the consignee on the condition that the consignee would pay the freight charges to the carrier upon taking cargo delivery. However, the consignee went bankrupt and failed to take cargo delivery and of course did not pay the freight charges. It was the shipper that asked the carrier to do the freight collect shipment, and therefore the shipper should be responsible for paying the outstanding freight charges. Moreover, the B/L would also have contract terms stipulating clearly that the shipper needs to be responsible for paying the freight charges if the consignee fails to take cargo delivery in the freight collect shipment. Furthermore, the carrier has the right of particular lien i.e. the cargo owner needs to settle all the outstanding charges related to the cargoes before the carrier will release the cargoes to the cargo owner. Accordingly, the shipper has to pay the outstanding freight charges (from HK to LA) to the carrier before the carrier will consider the new business of return shipment from LA to HK. The forwarding agent of the consignee is not a party to the B/L contract, and also has done nothing wrong in this matter of the consignee’s bankruptcy and the uncollected cargoes, the consignee’s forwarding agent should have no liability to pay any outstanding charges.
Q5. If the shipper and the consignee both do not take cargo delivery in the end, which party has the right to sell the uncollected cargoes? LA Customs? forwarder? carrier? Are the sale proceeds of the uncollected cargoes to be shared among the three parties?
A5. It is common the uncollected cargoes in the USA will go to the General Order (G.O.) warehouse of the USA government. It is up to the discretion of the G.O. warehouse as to when and how to sell or dispose of the uncollected cargoes. It is very common to see the sale proceeds (if any) in the end will not be sufficient to cover the storage charges of the G.O. warehouse. Hence, there will normally be nothing from the G.O. warehouse to be given to the carrier to cover the outstanding charges.
Q6. The forwarder clearly knew the US$100/day demurrage charge prior to making the booking of the shipping order, and the forwarder has had a long period of time in doing business with the shipping company. The forwarder had all along paid the demurrage charges of US$100/day in the past. When the latest uncollected cargo incident happens, can the forwarder still make a valid submission to the court that the forwarder can refuse to pay the demurrage of US$100/day because such demurrage charge is a penalty clause?
A6. The legal concept of penalty clause is on the basis that the two parties have already clearly agreed and accepted the penalty clause as the contract term, but that the law still does not allow the penalty clause to be legally valid. Therefore, the penalty clause is legally invalid and unenforceable because it is in terrorem of the offending party, extravagant, unconscionable, deterrent, and not genuine pre-estimate of losses; but not because it has not been agreed by the two parties. Hence, even if the forwarder has already contractually agreed with the shipping company to pay US$100/day/20′ container as container demurrage, such duly agreed contract term will still be legally held invalid and unenforceable if the court regards it as a penalty clause.
Q7. FCL shipment, triangle business ex Yantian to USA. The PRC factory sold the goods to the Hong Kong shipper. Later on, there are commercial disputes between the PRC factory and the Hong Kong shipper. The PRC factory is asking the forwarder to hold the cargoes despite the fact that the HB/L is in the Hong Kong shipper’s hands. What can the forwarder do?
A7. It appears both the factory and the shipper are competing for the same cargoes. The forwarder as NVOC cannot know which party (the factory or the shipper?) is the cargo owner. The forwarder should apply to the court asking the court to decide which party is the cargo owner for the forwarder to follow its instructions on cargo delivery. This legal action is called interpleader action, which is a time consuming exercise. Moreover, not many states have such a kind of legal action. Therefore, the forwarder may have to go for a simpler method of following the shipper’s instructions (since it is the shipper that is holding the full set of original HBs/L) after obtaining the transport liability insurer’s approval.
Q8. How can the transport liability insurer help the forwarder? Can the forwarder buy insurance cover for uncollected cargoes and demurrage charges?
A8. You should choose a transport liability insurer whose insurance policy terms also cover forwarders for (i) extra costs resulting from uncollected cargoes and (ii) liability for cargo conversion resulting from sale or disposal of uncollected cargoes. When you legally have to pay extra costs resulting from uncollected cargoes or you are legally held liable for the cargo owner’s conversion claim after your sale or disposal of the uncollected cargoes, your transport liability insurer should compensate your losses in accordance with the transport liability insurance policy terms.
Q9. For the telex release shipment, can the B/L back page terms give sufficient protection?
A9. The telex release shipment means the shipper has firstly surrendered the full set duly endorsed B/L to the carrier for the cargo delivery purpose and thereafter instructed the carrier to deliver the cargoes to the consignee without production of original B/L. Provided that the carrier has got back the full set of duly endorsed original B/L and received clear written instruction from the shipper to deliver the cargoes to the consignee without production of the original B/L, the protection to the carrier should be sufficient and the carrier should comply with the shipper’s telex release instruction.
Q10. For the telex release shipment, how to define the time when the consignee has taken cargo delivery?
A10. For the telex release shipment, when the carrier delivers the cargoes to the consignee without production of the original B/L, it is the time that the consignee has taken cargo delivery.
Q11. Due to the shipping company’s / forwarder’s mistake or planning the ship’s itinerary, the customer refuses to take cargo delivery because the cargo selling period passed. Can this be dealt with as uncollected cargoes?
A11. Even if the shipping company or forwarder has any mistake or negligence leading to the cargoes’ missing the selling period, the shipper and consignee still have to fulfill their obligation to mitigate their losses by taking the cargo delivery and then selling / disposing of the cargoes at the best terms obtainable. Moreover, it is the universal customary practice in the shipping industry that the shipping company and the forwarder can only accept liability for physical loss of or physical damage to the cargoes, but not for any consequential losses e.g. loss of market of the cargoes… In case the shipper and consignee insist on not taking cargo delivery, the shipping company or the forwarder can sell or dispose of these uncollected cargoes according to its B/L terms.
Q12. If the uncollected cargo incident happens after the consignee has surrendered the B/L for D/O and settled all the charges, is it true that (i) the shipping company can only claim against the consignee but not the shipper and (ii) the shipping company cannot rely on the B/L terms?
A12. After the consignee has surrendered the B/L to the shipping company for exchanging Delivery Order to take cargo delivery, the consignee and the shipping company become to have the contractual relationship in accordance with the B/L terms. There is usually a definition of Merchant in the B/L terms, which includes the shipper, the consignee, the B/L holder… Accordingly, the shipping can base on the B/L terms to claim against the consignee and/or the shipper for all the costs resulting from the uncollected cargoes.
Q13. If the shipper released the original B/L to the consignee, but the consignee did not take delivery of the cargoes, can shipper resale / dispose of / return the cargo?
A13. After the shipper gets back the full set of original B/L from the consignee and surrenders such to the carrier, the shipper has the right to ask the carrier to sell, dispose of, or return the uncollected cargoes.
Q14. You advised that the shipper has the right to ask the carrier to sell, dispose of, or return the uncollected cargoes after it getting back the full set of original B/L from the consignee and surrenders such to the carrier. However, what should the shipper do if it was unable to reach the consignee for the original B/L?
A14. The B/L is a document of title to the goods. If the shipper cannot surrender the full set of the B/L to the carrier, the carrier cannot follow the shipper’s instruction of changing the consignee, sale or disposal of the uncollected cargoes, or return shipment. The shipper may have to apply to the court holding the shipper as the owner of the cargoes and ordering the carrier to deliver up the cargoes to the shipper. Otherwise, the carrier may finally rely on its B/L terms to sell or dispose of the uncollected cargoes by public auction (and the shipper may participate to bid for the cargoes).
Q15. If the cargo is still in transit when the consignee was insolvent. The shipper informed the forwarder to withhold the cargo while the administrator asked the forwarder to release the goods. Should the forwarded release the cargo?
A15. Since there are two parties competing for the same cargoes, the forwarder (presumably as NVOC) has to take the interpleader legal action asking the court to decide which party (the shipper or the consignee?) is the cargo owner for the forwarder to release the cargoes. However, the interpleader legal action is a time consuming exercise and not many states have this action in their legal system, the forwarder may have to choose a simpler way to solve the problem by releasing the cargoes to the party (the shipper or the administrator) holding the full set of original Bs/L after obtaining the transport liability insurer’s approval.
Q16. you mentioned to us that if the forwarder without any HB/L contractual right of dispose of uncollected cargoes nor court’s order, the forwarder will take a risk – the cargo owner may sue the forwarder. I checked with our HB/L, we do not have this term on it, but it shows on our STC as per Haffa. KIndly let me know if we still take a risk?
A16. Despite that your HB/L does not have a term to allow you to sell or dispose of the uncollected cargoes, your HB/L also refers to your STC as per Haffa. You need to check your STC to see if it contains any term allowing you to sell or dispose of the uncollected cargoes. If yes, you may proceed to sell or dispose of the uncollected cargoes accordingly after obtaining your transport liability insurer’s approval.
Q17. Why we need to obtain our transport liability insurer’s approval?
A17. Even if you have contract terms that allow you to sell or dispose of the uncollected cargoes, some courts in this world may still hold you liable for cargo conversion and order you to compensate the cargo value to the cargo owner. Your transport liability insurer should cover you for such kind of cargo conversion liability in accordance with the insurance policy terms, and would require you to obtain its approval prior to your sale or disposal of the uncollected cargoes.
Q18. Can we arrange the Uncollected Cargoes returned back to HKG, after, Sale or Disposal for above …
A18. After your sale or disposal of the uncollected cargoes according to the B/L contractual terms or court order, you can ship the cargoes back to Hong Kong if the new cargo owner agrees with you to do a new business of carriage.
Q19. Can we request the Shipping Liner to Sale or Disposal from them directly … If they arrange that all demurrage who pay…
A19. After you contractually or legally obtain the right of selling or disposing of the uncollected cargoes, you can in turn ask the shipping company to sell or dispose of the uncollected cargoes. In case the shipping company insists on continuously storing the uncollected cargoes despite your instruction, the shipping company shall bear all the extra costs continuously incurred for the uncollected cargoes. After the shipping company’s sale or disposal of the uncollected cargoes, the shipping company can submit to you all the supporting documentary evidence (to prove its actual losses resulting from the uncollected cargoes) for your consideration in case the shipping company still wants to claim for the container demurrage. In case the shipper can duly prove its actual losses, you as the shipper / consignee under the MB/L should have liability to compensate the shipping company, and the actual shipper and consignee under your HB/L should in turn have liability to indemnify you for your losses.
Q20. (1) Due to business integration and acquisition, my customer agent (freight forwarder) holding a lot of uncollected cargoes in their own warehouse and some of the old (uncollected) cargoes are even switching to outside warehouse to store because the rental of their existing warehouse is very expensive in comparison to the outside ones – both concerning space utilization and costs. (2) There are almost 100 cbm of old cargoes with multi-shipments including air and sea cargoes idling in these warehouses but all of them are untraceable – because there is NO H/BL; HAWB or any document in relation to those cargoes in the warehouse. (3) Years passed but the cargoes are still lying in the warehouses… (4) I would like to know that under the above situation – because we have no referral / reference to neither contact could the shipper / consignee nor to have any document for sending Reminder Notes for notifying the related parties for sale or disposal of these cargoes – even their existing H B/L or HAWB did have the uncollected cargo terms and conditions. (5) Moreover, most of the uncollected / old cargoes were found no shipmark / information for referring to – just loose cartons, barrels or skids. Could we publish an legal advertisement in the Authorized Newspaper by stating that we will abandon a number of uncollected / old cargo by issuing photos attached to confirm there is no more ownership, then we organize an auction / tendering to sell all those to the interested buyer – we will then to record down the collected amounts from selling those uncollected / old cargoes to prepare for the cargo conversion risk.
A20. Since you are not the owner of the uncollected cargoes, you legally have no right to sell or dispose of the uncollected cargoes unless you have contract terms with your customers that allow you to sell or dispose of the uncollected cargoes. We suggest you check your contract terms with your customers again. In case you have the contract terms allowing you to sell or dispose of the uncollected cargoes, you may accordingly wish to follow the contract terms to sell or dispose of the uncollected cargoes. If you really do not have such contract terms, the only legal way to sell or dispose of the uncollected cargoes is to obtain the Court Order for you to do so. Publishing advertisements on newspapers will not give you the right legally to sell or dispose of the uncollected cargoes if you do not have such a right contractually or you have not got the consent of your customers or the cargo owners to sell or dispose of the uncollected cargoes. We suggest you report the case to your transport liability insurer so that it can instruct its shipping lawyer to give you the legal advice as to how to deal with this uncollected cargo problem without the risk of cargo conversion liability.
Q21. My company have a one lot LCL cargo from HKG to Karachi. But vessel ETA KAR over 1 year, UNTIL NOW, cnee did not pick up cargo and settle dest. local charges. As per shipper info, they had already send the original HBL to CNEE side, so the original HBL in CNEE hand. Now, I want to know that :- • If shipper issue abandon letter to us for arrange abandon, is it ok ? • If we will debit shipper for all dest. local charges, is it legal ? • Or we need to arrange anything or you have any suggestion to us ? Plse kindly adv.
A21. The B/L is a document of title to the goods. If the shipper wants to abandon the cargoes, the shipper has to firstly surrender the full set of the B/L to you to prove its cargo ownership prior to its giving you the cargo abandonment instruction. The shipper is the party asking you to ship the cargoes from Hong Kong to Karachi. Accordingly, the shipper should have the contractual liability under the B/L to compensate you for all your losses (including the destination local charges) resulting from the uncollected cargoes. However, the shipper may argue that it should not be liable to you for all those losses caused by your own failure to fulfill your obligation to mitigate your losses since you have unreasonably kept the uncollected cargoes for more than one year. We suggest you look at your B/L contract terms to see if there is any clause allowing you to sell or dispose of the uncollected cargoes. If yes, you should follow the B/L terms to sell or dispose of the uncollected cargoes after obtaining your transport liability insurer’s approval.
Q22. What is the different between MB/L & HBL? What are the effects of MB/L & HBL to whom? Who sign the MB/L and HBL? Agent parties-concerned or Master? Does it mean HBL with uncollected cargo wording but MB/L is not included?
A22. The HB/L is usually issued by the forwarder (as NVOC) to the actual shipper and consignee whereas the MB/L is usually issued by the shipping company to the NVOC (Non Vessel Owning Carrier) and the NVOC’s agent. The HB/L is often more related to the sale of goods contract between the seller and buyer. The MB/L is often more related to the contract of carriage as subcontracted to the shipping company by the NVOC. Both the HB/L and the MB/L should have the uncollected cargo contract terms so that the NVOC and the shipping company each may have the contract right of selling or disposing of the uncollected cargoes.
Q23. LCL shipment import to HKG. Consignee in HKG do not come to collect the goods. Any action we can take • HBL -> Telex released • Shipment terms exwork • Shipper overseas not care -> consignee do not settle our charges, unable to contact.
A23. We presume you act as the Hong Kong delivery agent for an overseas NVOC whose HB/L has been issued to the shipper and consignee. You should report the uncollected cargo situation to your principal i.e. the overseas NVOC for its reporting the claim case to its transport liability insurer. The overseas NVOC should base on its HB/L terms to sell or dispose of the uncollected cargoes. You as agent of the overseas NVOC have no right nor authority to sell or dispose of the uncollected cargoes unless you have received the instruction from your principal. The contract of carriage is the overseas NVOC’s HB/L with the shipper and consignee. Only the overseas NVOC has the contractual right to take action against the shipper and consignee. In case your principal insists on not giving you any uncollected cargo sale or disposal instruction, you should check your agency contract with the overseas NVOC to see if there are any terms allowing you to sell or dispose of the uncollected cargoes. If yes, you should proceed to sell or dispose of the uncollected cargoes by public auction after obtaining your transport liability insurer’s approval.
Q24. Shipments from HKG to Vietnam, cargo remaining uncollected at pod, accumulating demurrage. Can carrier sue shipper (a forwarder) at Hong Kong court?
A24. It all depends on the B/L’s jurisdiction clause. If it states Hong Kong laws and courts, then the carrier can sue the shipper (the forwarder) in the Hong Kong courts. However, if it states other laws and courts e.g. English, then the carrier should follow the B/L contract terms to sue the forwarder in the English courts.
Q25. If issue direct MBL, forwarder just act as booking agent, shipper on MBL is actual shipper; CNEE on MBL is actual consignee, in case uncollected cargo happened, both shipper / consignee disappeared, will carrier charge forwarder?
A25. The shipping company usually will try to claim against the forwarder for the extra costs resulting from the uncollected cargoes. However, the forwarder (presumably as the agent of the actual shipper) has no liability to the shipping company since the forwarder is not a party under the shipping company’s MB/L and the forwarder has not done anything wrong to cause the situation of uncollected cargoes. The shipping company should base on its MB/L’s contractual terms to sell or dispose of the uncollected cargoes, and thereafter close the file since the actual shipper and actual consignee under the MB/L have both disappeared.
In many questions above, disposals of uncollected cargoes are not easy and often very complicated involving huge amount of time and legal costs. Forwarders are caught in between and do not know the right direction to properly deal with the headache issues. More often than not, these cases become lingering hot potato.
If you need SMIC assistance in any or all of the above uncollected cargoes issues, please feel free to call Carrie Chung at 2299 5539 or George Cheung at 2299 5533.
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
Discerning forwarders could quickly spot any profitable business opportunity as well as cost cutting instrument. Not all insurances are the same but some do greatly assist forwarder in solving the headacheing uncollected cargoes problem, better still with our involvement, for SMIC’s ability in helping forwarders making better use of their insurance is proven – SMIC forwarders are fortified by in depth transport legal knowledge truly essential for successful loss prevention. Such ability is not convincing without the test of time. Drop us a line for a try.
The High Court of Hong Kong issued a Judgment on 22/5/2017 holding that the District Court has jurisdiction to determine bill of lading and bailment cases. [HCAJ 150/2014]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 9/4/2018 dealing with a cargo total loss case in which a NVOC in Malta was wrongly sued (because it had the same name as that of the correct NVOC in BVI). [HCAJ 65/2016], [2018 HKCFI 699]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 13 August 2021 holding a forwarder liable to pay nominal damages of HKD1,000 to a shipper in a cargo misdelivery claim case of USD1,299,189.87. [HCA 937/2016] [2021 HKCFI 2310]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 21/7/2014 discharging a Mareva injunction in relation to a cargo misdelivery claim of about US$12 million. [HCA 2368/2012]
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.
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 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 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 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 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]
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 Court of Appeal issued a Judgment on 20 September 2019 declining to give leave of appeal to Changhong Group in relation to the High Court Decision dated 29 January 2019 (reported in our Chans advice/221). [CAMP197/2019] [2019HKCA1061]
The 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]
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 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 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 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]
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]
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]
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 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 Court of Appeal issued a Judgment on 20 February 2019 dismissing Changhong Group’s appeal against the High Court’s Decision of 15 November 2018 (reported in Chans advice/215) because Changhong Group had not obtained leave to appeal from the Hong Kong High Court. [CACV576/2018] [2019HKCA246]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 29 January 2019 dismissing Changhong Group’s application for stay of the legal proceedings against it brought by the consignee and the insurer of the cargo on board the Sanchi. [HCAJ6/2018, 2019HKCFI263]
The Hong Kong 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 12/4/2016 to dismiss a cargo owner’s action in respect of breaking a barge owner’s tonnage limitation. [HCAJ 178/2014]
In our newsletter last month, we talked about some essential terms in house Air Waybills. In this issue, as the continuation of the loss prevention exercise for freight forwarders, we would like to discuss some essential terms in house Bills of Lading.
The Hong Kong 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]
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 Court of Appeal of Hong Kong issued a judgment on 28 March 2019 dealing with a matter concerning the sale pendente lite of an oil tanker Brightoil Glory. [CAMP49/2019][2019HKCA395]
The Hong Kong 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 Hong Kong District Court issued a Judgment on 26 April 2022 dealing with a case concerned with transfer of business and lifting the corporate veil, and held a forwarder and its shareholder and director jointly and severally liable for a debt of HK$975,733.71. [DCCJ 2104/2019] [2022 HKDC 289]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a 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].
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 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 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]
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 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 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)]
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 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]
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.
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.
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]
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.
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 District Court issued a Judgment on 28/4/2014 dismissing a seller’s cargo misdelivery claim of US$122,302.80 against a freight forwarder and holding the seller liable to pay the outstanding freight charges of US$28,855 to the forwarder. [DCCJ 344/2010]
Remember our Chans advice/163 about the English High Court’s Judgment holding the Hague Visby Rules instead of the Hague Rules to apply to the cargo damage claim case in excess of US$3.6 million? The English Court of Appeal issued a Judgment on 24/2/2016 upholding the High Court’s conclusion but with different reasons. [Case No: A3/2014/1285, 2016 EWCA Civ 101, 2016 WL 00692394]
In Chans advice/215, we reported the High Court of Hong Kong refused Changhong Group’s application to stay the Hong Kong action. The Court of Appeal also subsequently dismissed Changhong Group’s appeal. On 13 July 2020, the Court of Final Appeal finally dismissed Changhong Group’s application for leave to appeal. [FAMV No. 34 of 2020] [2020 HKCFA 24]
The High Court of Hong Kong issued a Judgment on 3/2/2012 concerning which currency (US$ 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 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 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.
In Chans advice/215, we reported that the Hong Kong High Court refused Changhong Group’s application to stay the Hong Kong proceedings; and in Chans advice/234, we reported that the Court of Final Appeal dismissed Changhong Group’s application for leave to appeal. On 7 April 2022, the Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision dealing with Changhong Group’s action to re-litigate its stay application. [HCAJ 3/2018] [2022 HKCFI 920]
The English High Court issued a Judgment on 15/5/2015 maintaining an anti-suit injunction to restrain the Xiamen Maritime Court’s legal proceedings in breach of a London arbitration agreement. [Case No: 2015-515], [2015 WL 2238741], [2015 EWHC 1974 COMM]
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/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 ruling on 2/12/2016 dealing with a shipowner’s interrogatory application in relation to an uncollected cargo case. [HCAJ 118/2015]
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 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 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]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 2 October 2024 dismissing a shipping company’s application to strike out a forwarder’s third party indemnity claim in a cargo (frozen beef) damage case. [HCAJ 9/2023, HCAJ 22/2023, 2024 HKCFI 2708]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 5/8/2015 holding that a shipment of formula milk powder without the legally required export licence should not be forfeited. [HCMA171/2015]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a decision on 31 May 2022 ordering a South Korean shipowner to provide a Hong Kong shipowner with security for costs in the amount of HK$600,000 in relation to a ship collision case that happened in Hong Kong during the super typhoon Hato in August 2017. [HCAJ 80-85/2019] [2022 HKCFI 1631]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 4 March 2020 dismissing a shipowner’s application for a stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration in a case of cargo misdelivery without presentation of original bill of lading. [HCAJ 5/2019] [2020 HKCFI 375]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 30 September 2021 holding a shipowner’s Defences as an abuse of process in a case of unpaid crew wages. [HCAJ 76/2020] [2021 HKCFI 2961] [HCAJ 91/2020]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 2/6/2017 dealing with the liability apportionment among 3 vessels in 2 almost simultaneous collisions that happened near Hong Kong on 14/5/2011. [HCAJ158/2012 and HCAJ49/2013 and HCAJ48/2011]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 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]
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.
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 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 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 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 Court of Appeal issued a Judgment on 17/7/2014 holding a Hong Kong forwarder liable to pay US$852,339 plus costs and interest (as damages for conversion) to an Indian bank in an air cargo misdelivery case. [CACV 282/2012]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 29/4/2013 relating to a discovery order ancillary to and in support of a Mareva injunction. [HCA 2124/2011]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Judgment on 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]
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 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 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]
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]
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 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]
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]
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.
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 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 on 18/11/2011 issued a Judgment concerning a quite confusing situation that three different laws (the USA, the PRC, and Hong Kong) might apply to the one shipment. [HCAJ 198/2009]
The Hong Kong District Court issued a Decision on 30 April 2021 dealing with a personal injury case in relation to a container terminal. [DCPI 110/2020] [2021 HKDC 463]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a 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]
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.
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 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/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 High Court of Hong Kong issued a summary Judgment on 28/9/2012 holding a forwarder liable for US$626,389 plus costs and interest for misdelivery of cargoes without production of the original bills of lading. [HCCL 20/2011 & HCCL 21/2011]
The Hong Kong High Court 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 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 High Court of Hong Kong issued a Decision on 15 November 2018 concerning the tragic collision between the cargo vessel CF Crystal and the tanker Sanchi, which happened on 6 January 2018 and led to the death of all the officers and crew of the Sanchi. [HCAJ3/2018] [2018HKCFI2474]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 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 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]
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 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]
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 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 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 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 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]
The amendment to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) 1974 Chapter VI, Regulation 2 in respect of the verified gross mass of a container carrying cargo (laden container) is for entry into force globally on 1 July 2016.
The High Court of Hong Kong issued a 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]
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 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 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 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 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 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 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]
There are three ways of fulfilling the deposit requirement of the Ministry of Transport (“MOT”) in the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) for your NVOCC license.
The Hong Kong 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]
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]
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 United States District Court (Southern District of New York) issued an order on 29 November 2021 to deny a shipping company’s motion to rely on the Singapore jurisdiction clause in its bill of lading. [1:19-cv-5731-GHW-RWL]
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision 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 Judgment on 18/11/2016 dismissing a shipping company’s application for summary judgment against its former deputy general manager (Mr Ma) for restitution of the sum of HK$387,655,303.70 on the ground of money had and received and/or unjust enrichment. [HCA 619/2016]
The Hong Kong District Court issued a Decision on 8 May 2020 upholding a summary judgment ordering one forwarder to pay outstanding airfreight charges of HK$440,000 to another forwarder. [DCCJ1202/2018] [2020HKDC307]
In 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.
To continue our recent series of loss prevention articles, we would like to discuss in this issue the major provisions of the PRC Maritime Code as far as the international carriage of goods by sea is concerned.
The Hong Kong High Court issued a Decision on 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 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]
