Shipping & Transport

From DMC
Revision as of 20:28, 1 April 2010 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/10/10

Singapore High Court

[[The “Asia Star” http://www.onlinedmc.co.uk/index/php/The_"Asia_Star" ]] [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”)[[1]]

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 [[2]]

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”) [[3]]

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” [[4]]

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; [5]

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

[[6]]

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:[7]

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” [[8]]

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=237’