Shipping & Transport

From DMC
Revision as of 21:19, 18 May 2011 by Dmcadmin (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Main Page - Admiralty - Carriage of Goods - Other Cases - Time C/P Disputes - Voyage C/P Disputes

DMC/SandT/11/15

Canada

Société Telus Communications and Hydro-Québec and Bell Canada v Peracomo Inc, and Réal Vallée and the Owners and all other persons interested in the fishing vessel Realice and the fishing vessel Realice

Federal Court of Canada: Harrington J.: 2011 FC 494: 27 April 2011:[[1]]

SHIPPING: SUBMARINE CABLE CUT BY SKIPPER OF FISHING VESSEL: WHETHER DAMAGE CAUSED INTENTIONALLY OR RECKLESSLY AND WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT 'SUCH LOSS' WOULD PROBABLY RESULT: WHETHER DEFENDANTS ENTITLED TO LIMIT LIABILITY UNDER THE 1976 LIMITATION CONVENTION, AS INCORPORATED INTO CANADIAN LAW


DMC/SandT/11/14

The Netherlands

DSV Road B.V. and Amlin Corporate Insurance N.V. v Sneltransport “Heidenend” Tegelen B.V.

Amsterdam Court of Appeal: A.S. Arnold, W.H.F.M. Cortenraad and H.M. ten Haaft, LJN BL9955, April 2, 2010: [[2]]

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY ROAD: CMR CONVENTION: WHETHER SHIPPER-PACKED TRAILER CAN BE CONSIDERED ‘GOODS’ WITHIN ART.17.2


DMC/SandT/11/13

England

Shell Egypt West Manzala GmbH and another v Dana Gas Egypt Limited Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court): Tomlinson J: [2010] EWHC 465 (Comm): 10 March 2010:[[3]]

CONTRACT: JOINT VENTURE FOR GAS EXPLORATION: REPUDIATORY BREACH COMMITTED BY ONE PARTY: INNOCENT PARTY TERMINATED CONTRACT BASED ON WRONG BELIEF THAT CONTRACTUAL TERMINATION CLAUSE WAS TRIGGERED: WHETHER INNOCENT PARTY COULD JUSTIFY TERMINATION OF CONTRACT


DMC/SandT/11/12

England

Choil Trading SA v Sahara Energy Resources Limited (The “Prem Mala”) English Commercial Court: Christopher Clarke J: [2010] EWHC 374 (Comm): 26 February 2010: [[4]]

SALE OF GOODS CARRIED BY SEA: FOB SALE CONTRACT: CIF ON-SALE CONTRACTS: QUANTIFICATION OF DAMAGES FOR DELIVERY OF CONTAMINATED GOODS IN BREACH OF FOB CONTRACT: RECOVERABILITY OF HEDGING LOSSES INCURRED IN MITIGATION IN RELATION TO CIF CONTRACTS: WHETHER TRUE CONSTRUCTION OF FOB CONTRACT EXEMPTION CLAUSE EXCLUDED RECOVERY OF HEDGING AND ADDITIONAL EXPENSES/COSTS INCURRED AS A RESULT OF BREACH OF CONTRACT


DMC/SandT/11/11

English High Court

Azimut–Benetti SpA v. Healey

English High Court: Blair J.: [2010] EWHC 2234 (Comm): 3 September 2010: [[5]]

SHIPBUILDING CONTRACT: LIQUIDATED DAMAGES: GUARANTEE: WHETHER LIQUIDATED DAMAGES CONSTITUTE A PENALTY: WHETHER A PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS IN THE CASE OF BREACH: WHETHER A DETERRENT: WHETHER GUARANTEE REMAINS ENFORCEABLE WHERE A PROVISION IN THE UNDERLYING CONTRACT CONSTITUTES A PENALTY: PUBLIC POLICY


DMC/SandT/11/10

United Kingdom

Oceanbulk Shipping & Trading SA v TMT Asia Ltd & ORs

United Kingdom Supreme Court: Lord Phillips, Lord Rodger, Lord Walker, Lord Brown, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Sir John Dyson): [2010] UKSC 44: 27 October 2010: [[6]]

CONTRACTS: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT: INTERPRETATION: ‘WITHOUT PREJUDICE’ COMMUNICATIONS: WHETHER FACTS DISCLOSED DURING ‘WITHOUT PREJUDICE’ NEGOTIATIONS ADMISSIBLE AS AN AID TO CONSTRUCTION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT


DMC/SandT/11/09

English Court of Appeal

Thomas Crema v. Cenkos Securities PLC

English Court of Appeal (Civil Division); Hughes LJ, Aikens LJ, Chancellor Morritt; [2010] EWCA Civ 1444, 16 December 2010: [[7]]

CONTRACT PARTLY WRITTEN AND PARTLY ORAL: WHETHER TERM SHOULD BE IMPLIED: RELEVANT PRINCIPLES: RELEVANCE OF MARKET PRACTICE: EXPERT EVIDENCE: LIMITATIONS OF EXPERT EVIDENCE


DMC/SandT/11/08

English Court of Appeal

Kookmin Bank v Rainy SA and others

English Court of Appeal: Thorpe and Patten LJJ and Sir Simon Tuckey: [2010] EWCA Civ 582, [2010] 1 CLC 829: 27 May 2010:[[8]]

SHIPBUILDING: LETTER OF GUARANTEE: CONTRACTUAL INTERPRETATION: EXTREME CONSEQUENCES REQUIRED TO DEPART FROM MEANING OF WORDS AS CONVEYED TO REASONABLE PERSON: NO DEPARTURE SIMPLY BECAUSE COURT WOULD REACH DIFFERENT BALANCE OF PARTIES’ INTERESTS AND OBLIGATIONS UNDER CONTRACT


DMC/SandT/11/07

English Court of Appeal

Brink’s Global Services Inc & Ors v. Igrox Ltd & Anor Court of Appeal: Longmore, Moore-Bick and Wilson LJJ.: [2010] EWCA Civ 1208: 27 October 2010: [[9]]

CARRIAGE OF GOODS: THEFT FROM CONTAINER BY EMPLOYEE OF FUMIGATION COMPANY: WHETHER COMPANY VICARIOUSLY LIABLE: CLOSE CONNECTION BETWEEN THEFT AND PURPOSE OF EMPLOYMENT


DMC/SandT/11/06

English Commercial Court

Dalwood Marine v Nordana Line A/S, The “Elbrus”; Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court): Teare J: [2009] EWHC 3394 (Comm), [2010] 2 All ER (Comm) 802: 21 December 2009:[[10]]

TIME CHARTERPARTY: WRONGFUL EARLY TERMINATION BY CHARTERERS: DAMAGES: WHETHER HIRE EARNED BY SHIPOWNERS IN SUBSTITUTE FIXTURE WHICH EXTENDED BEYOND REMAINDER OF ORIGINAL CHARTER RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT


DMC/SandT/2011/05

English Commercial Court

Glencore Energy UK Limited v Transworld Oil Limited (The “Narmada Spirit”): English Commercial Court: Blair J: [2010] EWHC 141 (Comm): 3 February 2010: [[11]]

SALE OF GOODS CARRIED BY SEA: FOB CONTRACT: CORRECT QUANTIFICATION OF DAMAGES FOR NON-DELIVERY OF CRUDE OIL CARGO FOR WHICH THERE WAS NO AVAILABLE MARKET: NEED TO ACCOUNT IN DAMAGES FOR REDUCED LOSS SUFFERED FOLLOWING EARLY CLOSING OUT OF HEDGED POSITION OF BUYER FOLLOWING ACCEPTANCE OF SELLER’S REPUDIATION


DMC/SandT/11/04

English Court of Appeal

Röhlig (UK) Ltd v Rock Unique Ltd: Court of Appeal, Sedley, Moore-Bick and Aikens LJJ.: 20 January 2011: [2011] EWCA Civ 18:[[12]]

INTERNATIONAL CARRIAGE OF GOODS: BIFA CONDITIONS: WHETHER NO SET-OFF AND TIME BAR PROVISIONS REASONABLE UNDER UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS ACT 1977


DMC/SandT/11/03

English Court of Appeal

KG Bominflot Bunkergesellschaft für Mineraloele mbH & Co v Petroplus Marketing AG (The “Mercini Lady”): English Court of Appeal: Maurice Kay, Rix and Patten LJJ: [2010] EWCA Civ 1145: 19 October 2010: [[13]]

SALE OF GOODS CARRIED BY SEA: FOB ANTWERP SALE OF EU GASOIL WITH FREE DESTINATION: “SPECIAL” COMMON LAW IMPLIED TERM/CONDITION: STATUTORILY IMPLIED CONDITIONS: WHETHER CARGO TO REMAIN ON-SPECIFICATION FOR A REASONABLE TIME FOLLOWING SHIPMENT: EFFECT OF EXCLUSION CLAUSE ON IMPLIED CONDITIONS: SECTION 14(2) OF THE SALE OF GOODS ACT 1979


DMC/SandT/11/02

Singapore

Singapore Court of Appeal

The “Asia Star” [2010] SGCA 12: Judgment delivered by VK Rajah JA, 19 March 2010 [2010] SGCA 12[[14]]

Kelvin Chia Partnership for the Appellant Shipowners

Shook Lin & Bok LLP for the Respondent Charteres

BREACH OF CONTRACT TO CARRY CARGO: WHETHER PLAINTIFF ACTED REASONABLY IN MITIGATION OF LOSS: MEASURE OF DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT TO CARRY CARGO: REQUIREMENT TO NOTIFY THE DEFAULTING PARTY OF INTENDED MEASURES IN MITIGATION


DMC/SandT/11/01

Germany

German Federal Supreme Court – Assessment of Damages under the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (‘CMR’): Date of Judgment: 30 September 2010[[15]]

CMR TRANSPORT: WILFUL MISCONDUCT: ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES


DMC/SandT/10/25

England

Angara Maritime Ltd v Oceanconnect UK Ltd and Oceanconnect.com Inc (The “Fesco Angara”)[[16]]

Queen’s Bench Division, London Mercantile Court: HHJ Mackie QC: [2010] EWHC 619 (QB): 29 March 2010

SALE OF GOODS: BUNKERS/MARINE FUELS: S.25(1) OF THE SALE OF GOODS ACT 1979: SALE OF BUNKERS TO TIME CHARTERERS: BUNKERS DELIVERED TO VESSEL: FAILURE BY TIME CHARTERERS TO PAY SUPPLIERS FOR BUNKERS: RIGHT OF SUPPLIERS TO SUE OWNERS IN CONVERSION AND/OR BAILMENT FOLLOWING PREMATURE REDELIVERY OF VESSEL BY TIME CHARTERERS TO OWNERS


DMC/SandT/10/26

England

Soufflet Negoce SA v Bunge SA

English Court of Appeal: Longmore, Wilson and Toulson LJJ: [2010] EWCA 1102: 13 October 2010[[17]]

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/1102.html

FOB CONTRACT: GAFTA 49 FORM: “IN READINESS TO LOAD”: WHETHER THIS MEANS THAT VESSEL MUST BE “READY” TO LOAD IN A LAYTIME SENSE: RISK OF GOODS DAMAGED BY UNCLEAN HOLDS ON BUYER


DMC/SandT/10/24

England

Zodiac Maritime Agencies Limited v Fortescue Metals Group Limited

Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court): David Steel J: [2010] EWHC 903 (Comm): 28 April 2010[[18]]

CONSECUTIVE VOYAGE CHARTERPARTY: WRONGFUL EARLY TERMINATION BY CHARTERER: DAMAGES: WHETHER “AVAILABLE MARKET” WHEN CHARTERPARTY TERMINATED: WHETHER SUBSEQUENT EMERGENCE OF MARKET DURING THE BALANCE OF CHARTER PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES


DMC/SandT/10/23

England

ENE 1 Kos Limited v Petroleo Brasileiro SA[[19]]

English Court of Appeal (Civil): Longmore and Smith LJJ and Sir Mark Waller: [2010] EWCA Civ 772: 6 July 2010

TIME CHARTERPARTY: SHIP WITHDRAWN FOR NON-PAYMENT OF HIRE WHILST LOADING CARGO: CARGO DISCHARGED BACK TO SHORE TWO DAYS LATER: WHETHER SHIPOWNER COULD CLAIM REMUNERATION AT MARKET RATE FOR STORING THE CARGO DURING THAT PERIOD: WHETHER REMUNERATION DUE UNDER IMPLIED TERM OR AS QUANTUM MERUIT: WHETHER DUE AS RIGHT CORRELATIVE TO DUTY OF LOOKING AFTER GOODS: WHETHER SHIPOWNER COULD RECOVER COSTS OF PROVIDING BAIL BOND


DMC/SandT/10/22

England

Compania Sud Americana de Vapores SA v Sinochem Tianjin Import & Export Corp – the « Aconcagua»[[20]]

English High Court: Christopher Clarke J.: [2009] EWHC 1880 (Comm); 24 July 2009

BILLS OF LADING : SHIPMENT OF CALCIUM HYPOCHLORITE IN CONTAINER: EXPLOSION AND FIRE: DANGEROUS GOODS: WHETHER CARRIER ENTITLED TO INDEMNITY UNDER ART.IV RULE 6 OF HAGUE RULES: STOWAGE OF CONTAINER IN PROXIMITY TO HEATED BUNKER TANK: WHETHER THIS CAUSED THE EXPLOSION: WHETHER THIS RENDERED VESSEL UNSEAWORTHY AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE VOYAGE: WHETHER CARRIER COULD RELY ON DEFENCE OF ERROR IN MANAGEMENT OF THE SHIP


DMC/SandT/10/21

England

Cosco Bulk Carrier Co Ltd v Team-Up Owning Co Ltd – The “Saldanha”[[21]]

English High Court: Gross J.: 11 June 2010 [2010] EWHC 1340 (Comm)

NYPE FORM CHARTERPARTY: PIRACY: WHETHER SHIP OFF-HIRE DURING DETENTION BY PIRATES: AVERAGE ACCIDENTS TO SHIP OR CARGO: DEFAULT OR DEFICIENCY OF MEN: ANY OTHER CAUSE PREVENTING THE FULL WORKING OF THE VESSEL


DMC/SandT/10/20

England

Glory Wealth Shipping Pte Ltd v North China Shipping Limited (M/V “North Prince”)[[22]]

Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court): David Steel J: [2010] EWHC 1692 (Comm): 8 July 2010

TIME CHARTERPARTY: WRONGFUL EARLY REDELIVERY OF VESSEL BY SUB-CHARTERER: DAMAGES AS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MARKET RATE OF HIRE AND CONTRACT RATE OF HIRE: DISPONENT SHIPOWNER’S EARLY REDELIVERY OF VESSEL UNDER HEAD CHARTER IRRELEVANT UNLESS CAUSED BY SUB-CHARTERER’S REPUDIATION


DMC/SandT/10/19

English High Court

Omak Maritime Ltd v Mamola Challenger Shipping Co[[23]]

Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court): Teare J: [2010] EWHC 2026 (Comm): 4 August 2010

TIME CHARTERPARTY: BREACH OF CONTRACT BY CHARTERER: MARKET RATE OF HIRE HIGHER THAN CONTRACT RATE OF HIRE: SHIPOWNER’S CLAIM FOR WASTED EXPENDITURE: RELATION WITH PRINCIPLE IN ROBINSON V HARMAN


DMC/SandT/10/18

Hong Kong

The “Hua Tian Long”[[24]]

Hong Kong SAR Court of First Instance: Stone J in Chambers: HCAJ No. 59/2008: 23 April 2010

http://www.hklii.org/hk/jud/eng/hkcfi/2010/HCAJ000059_2008-70707.html

BREACH OF CONTRACT: DEFENDANT SHIPOWNER’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE VESSEL: CHINESE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT AS SHIPOWNER: CLAIM FOR SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AND CROWN IMMUNITY: WAIVER AND SUBMISSION TO JURISDICTION


DMC/SandT/10/17

South Africa

The MV “Ioannis NK”[[25]]

The owner of the cargo lately laden on board the MV “Ioannis NK” v The Master and Crew & Others (AC 66/2009)

High Court of South Africa (Western Cape High Court, Cape Town) exercising its admiralty jurisdiction: Cleaver J.; 26 August 2009

EXAMINATION OF CREW FOR PURPOSE OF OBTAINING EVIDENCE WHERE DISPUTE SUBJECT TO FOREIGN PROCEEDINGS: EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER THE ADMIRALTY JURISIDICTION REGULATIONS ACT 1983: FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED: RIGHTS OF CREW MEMBERS FOLLOWING A CASUALTY


DMC/SandT/10/16

England and Wales

Kolmar Group AG v Traxpo Enterprises Pvt Limited [[26]]

English High Court: [2010] EWHC 113 (Comm)

INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS: FOB CONTRACT: ECONOMIC DURESS BY DEMANDING PAYMENT FOR LESSER AMOUNT OF GOODS AT HIGHER PRICE THAN AGREED UNDER THE CONTRACT: TORT OF INTIMIDATION: DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT


DMC/SandT/10/15

New Zealand

Tasman Orient Line CV v New Zealand China Clays Limited and others[[27]] Supreme Court of New Zealand (Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath and Wilson JJ) [2010] NZSC 37 (16 April 2010)

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA: SHIP DAMAGED BY GROUNDING: SEAWATER ENTRY TO FORWARD COMPARTMENTS: DECK CARGO OF CONTAINERS DAMAGED BY INUNDATION: HAGUE-VISBY RULES: ART.IV RULE 2(a): DEFENCE OF ACT, NEGLECT OR DEFAULT OF THE MASTER… IN THE NAVIGATION OR MANAGEMENT OF THE SHIP: FAILURE TO NOTIFY AUTHORITIES OF CASUALTY: FAILURE TO PROVIDE TIMELY AND ACCURATE INFORMATION TO SHIP’S MANAGERS: CAUSE OF CASUALTY INITIALLY FABRICATED: ALL LEADING TO DELAY IN PROVISION OF SALVAGE SERVICES: WHETHER ELEMENT OF GOOD FAITH ESSENTIAL TO CARRIER’S ENTITLEMENT TO RULE 2(a) DEFENCE


DMC/SandT/10/14

English High Court

Sylvia Shipping Co Limited v Progress Bulk Carriers Limited [[28]]

[2010] EWHC 542 (Comm): English High Court of Justice - Commercial Court; Hamblen J.; 18 March 2010

ARBITRATION APPEAL: TIMECHARTERPARTY: MEASURE OF DAMAGES FOR OWNERS’ BREACH: WHETHER OWNERS LIABLE FOR TIMECHARTERERS’ LOSS OF PROFIT ON CANCELLED SUB-CHARTER


DMC/SandT/10/13

Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

Maintek Computer (Suzhou) Co Ltd and others v Blue Anchor Line and others[[29]]

Hong Kong SAR Court of First Instance: Reyes J in Chambers: HCAJ No. 106/2008: 25 February 2010 [30]

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA: MISDELIVERY BY OCEAN TERMINAL: SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT: REAL PROSPECT OF SUCCESS: LIMITATION CLAUSE: MEANING OF ‘DELIVERY’: STAY IN FAVOUR OF ARBITRATION: APPLICABILITY OF TERMINAL CONTRACT


DMC/SandT/10/12

The Netherlands

Maersk B.V., formerly “P&O Nedlloyd” and before that called Nedlloyd Lijnen B.V., Rotterdam, the Netherlands v. Irano European Co. Ireco S.A., Luxembourg - The “Dolphin I”[[31]]

Court of Appeal of The Hague (The Netherlands). J.M. van der Klooster, J.E.H.M. Pickaers, J.H.J. Teunissen, 29 September 2009, Case number 105.002.543/01 (unpublished)

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA: HAGUE RULES: RECEIVED FOR SHIPMENT BILL OF LADING: CARGO DAMAGE: PERISHABLE GOODS: GROSS NEGLIGENCE: CARRIER’S KNOWLEDGE OF GOODS IN CONTAINERS: ‘BEFORE AND AFTER’ CLAUSE: LIMITATION OF APPLICABILITY OF CONTRACTUAL CLAUSES: REASONABLENESS AND FAIRNESS


DMC/SandT/10/11

High Court of England and Wales

Sotrade Denizcilik Sanayi Ve Ticaret AS v Amadou LO and others (The “Duden”)[[32]]

Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court): Jonathan Hirst, Q.C.: [2008] EWHC 2762 (Comm); [2009] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 145: 19 November 2008

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA: CHARTERPARTY: LONDON ARBITRATION CLAUSE INCORPORATED IN BILLS OF LADING: CONSERVATORY ARREST BY CARGO OWNER AND INSURER: JURISDICTION: ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTION: WRONGFUL INDUCEMENT OR PROCUREMENT OF BREACH OF EXPRESS AND IMPLIED TERMS OF BILL OF LADING CONTRACT: REFUSAL TO ACCEPT PROTECTION AND INDEMNITY CLUB UNDERTAKING


DMC/SandT/10/10

Singapore High Court

The “Asia Star” [[33]][2009] SGHC 91

Judgment delivered by Judith Prakash J, 17 April 2009 [2009] SGHC 91

BREACH OF CONTRACT TO CARRY CARGO: WHETHER PLAINTIFF ACTED REASONABLY IN MITIGATION OF LOSS: PLAINTIFF NOT REQUIRED TO INCUR EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSE OR TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS IN ORDER TO MITIGATE LOSS: MEASURE OF DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT TO CARRY CARGO


DMC/SandT/10/09

English High Court ]] Kallang Shipping SA Panama v AXA Assurances Senegal and Comptoir Commercial Mandiaye Ndiaya (The “Kallang”)[[34]]

Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court): Jonathan Hirst, Q.C.: [2008] EWHC 2761 (Comm); [2009] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 124: 19 November 2008

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA: CHARTERPARTY: LONDON ARBITRATION CLAUSE INCORPORATED IN BILLS OF LADING: IMPLIED TERMS: ARREST BY CARGO OWNER AND INSURER: SECURITY: JURISDICTION: WRONGFUL INDUCEMENT OR PROCUREMENT OF BREACH OF CONTRACT: PROTECTION AND INDEMNITY CLUB: LETTERS OF UNDERTAKING

DMC/SandT/10/08

Singapore

TAT SENG MACHINE MOVERS PTE LTD V. ORIX LEASING SINGAPORE LTD:[2009] SGCA 42 [[35]]

Singapore Court of Appeal: Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, Chao Hick Tin JA, V K Rajah JA: 11 September 2009

BAILMENT – BAILOR’S RIGHT TO IMMEDIATE RIGHT TO POSSESSION IF BAILEE’S BEHAVIOUR REPUGNANT TO TERMS OF BAILMENT – WHETHER CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS RESTRICTED BAILOR’S RIGHTS UNDER COMMON LAW

TORT – CONVERSION – WHETHER ACT OF REMOVING MACHINE FROM PREMISES AND DELIVERING IT AS INSTRUCTED AMOUNTED TO CONVERSION OF MACHINE – WHETHER ACT OF STORING MACHINE AT WAREHOUSE AMOUNTED TO CONVERSION OF MACHINE – WHETHER ACT OF REDELIVERING MACHINE TO PURPORTED OWNER AMOUNTED TO CONVERSION OF MACHINE


DMC/SandT/10/7

Hong Kong

The “Blue Bridge” (formerly known as The “Great Power”) [[36]]

Hong Kong SAR Court of First Instance: Reyes J in Chambers: HCAJ No. 136/1999: 1 February 2010

http://www.hklii.org/hk/jud/eng/hkcfi/2010/HCAJ000136_1999-69593.html

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA: SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT ENTERED INTO AGAINST A SHIPOWNING COMPANY THAT HAD BEEN DISSOLVED: APPLICATION BY RE-INSURER TO INTERVENE: AUTHORITY TO ACT FOR PRINCIPAL IN LITIGATION: DELAY IN APPLICATION TO INTERVENE: REAL PROSPECT OF SUCCESS


DMC/SandT/10/06

Singapore

The “Catur Samudra” [[37]]

Singapore High Court: Judgment delivered by Steven Chong JC, 15 January 2010: [2010] SGHC 18

ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION : WHETHER CLAIM UNDER GUARANTEE IS A CLAIM “ARISING OUT OF AN AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE USE OR HIRE” OF A VESSEL : SECTION 3(1)(H) HIGH COURT (ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION) ACT


DMC/SandT/10/04

Hong Kong

Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc v The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship or Vessel “Asian Atlas” (The “Asian Atlas”)

Hong Kong SAR Court of Appeal: Ma CJHC, Stone and Reyes JJ: CACV No. 257 of 2007: 23 April 2008 ([2008] 3 HKLRD 604; [38]

ACTION IN REM UNDER HK HIGH COURT ORDINANCE, S.12A(2)(e): WARRANT OF ARREST: FOR “ANY CLAIM FOR DAMAGE DONE BY A SHIP”: SETTING ASIDE: MATERIAL NON-DISCLOSURE OF FACTS RELATING TO JURISDICTION


DMC/SandT/10/03

Hong Kong

Cheong Yuk Fai and another v China International Freight Forwarders (HK) Ltd

[[39]]

Hong Kong SAR Court of Appeal: Cheung and Yuen JJA and A Chung J: CACV No. 463 of 2002: 26 January 2005: [2005] 4 HKLRD 544 (English translation; judgment handed down in Chinese)

http://www.hklii.org/hk/jud/eng/hkca/2005/CACV000463X_2002-47015.html

CARRIAGE OF GOODS: CLAIM AGAINST CARRIER FOR WRONGFUL DELIVERY OF GOODS: CONVERSION: LIMITATION UNDER HAGUE-VISBY RULES AND BILL OF LADING


DMC/SandT/10/02

German Federal Supreme Court

Date of Judgement: 18 June 2009: Case Reference 1ZR 140/06:[40]

CARRIER’S LIABILITY: BREAKING THE LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: SUB-CONTRACTING


DMC/SandT/10/01

The Netherlands Supreme Court

Nile Dutch Africa Line B.V, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (“NDAL”) v. (1) Delta Lloyd Schadeverzekering N.V., Rotterdam, the Netherlands (“Delta Lloyd”), (2) Premium Tobacco Investments N.V., Amsterdam, the Netherlands (“Tobacco”), (3) M. Meerapfel Söhne A.G., Basel, Switzerland (“Meerapfel”) and (4) CETAC, Douala, Cameroon (“Cetac”) - The “NDS Provider” [[41]]

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA UNDER BILL OF LADING: HAGUE VISBY RULES: LIABILITY FOR DEFECTIVE CONTAINERS SUPPLIED BY CARRIER: PACKAGING OR PART OF THE VESSEL? INTERPRETATION OF TREATIES UNDER DUTCH LAW

Retrieved from ‘https://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index.php?title=Shipping_%26_Transport&oldid=509’