Difference between revisions of "Admiralty"

Latest revision as of 21:35, 16 July 2019

DMC/SandT/19/04

England

NatWest Markets plc v Stallion Eight Shipping Co SA

English Commercial Court: Teare J: [2018] EWHC 2033 (Admlty): 31 July 2018:[[[1]]]]

SHIP ARREST: ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION: APPLICATION FOR RELEASE FROM ARREST UNDER CPR RULE 61.8(4)(B): WHETHER DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO CROSS-UNDERTAKING IN RESPECT OF POTENTIAL DAMAGES

DMC/SandT/15/04

Hong Kong

The Alas renamed The Kombos: Hong Kong Court of First Instance: Ng J: HCAJ 241/2009: [2014] 4 HKLRD 160: 21 July 2014:[[2]]

ADMIRALTY: WARRANT OF ARREST: SHIPOWNERS’ CLAIM FOR DAMAGES AND UNPAID HIRE: FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARD NOT SATISFIED: NO BAR TO ACTION IN REM FOR CLAIM ARISING OUT OF AGREEMENT FOR USE OR HIRE OF THE SHIP

DMC/SandT/14/07

Hong Kong

Darby International Investment Ltd v Rong Tai International Shipping Ltd

Hong Kong Court of First Instance: Deputy High Court Judge B Chu: HCMP1438 of 2013: 2 December 2013:[[3]]

http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/2013/2031.html

MARITIME LAW: REGISTRATION OF VESSELS: VESSEL APPARENTLY REGISTERED IN MORE THAN ONE JURISDICTION: DECLARATION AS TO VALIDITY OF REGISTRATION IN HONG KONG: PURPOSE OF GRANTING DECLARATION

DMC/SandT/14/02

Singapore

Singapore High Court

The “Turtle Bay” [2013] SGHC 165 : Judgment delivered by Belinda Ang Saw Ean J, 30 August 2013: [_Turtle_Bay]

SALE OF VESSEL UNDER ARREST: WHEN DIRECT PRIVATE SALE OF VESSEL UNDER ARREST CONSTITUTES CONTEMPT OF COURT: PRINCIPLES AND EFFECT OF ADMIRALTY JUDICIAL SALE: WHEN COURT WILL SANCTION A DIRECT PRIVATE SALE

DMC/SandT/13/08

Hong Kong

Kulemesin Yuriy v HKSAR - The Neftegaz67

Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal: Ma CJ, Chan, Riberio and Tang PJJ and Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony NPJ: FACV No. 6 and 7 of 2012: 22 February 2013:[[4]]

http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/cases/hkcfa/2013/15.html

COLLISION: OFFENCE OF ENDANGERING THE SAFETY OF OTHERS: STATE OF MIND REQUIRED FOR THE OFFENCE OF ENDANGERMENT: NARROW CHANNEL AS QUESTION OF FACT: SHIPPING AND PORT CONTROL ORDINANCE (CAP.313, LAWS OF HONG KONG)

DMC/SandT/13/05

The “Decurion”

Hong Kong

Hong Kong Court of Appeal: Fok, Chu JJA and McWalters J: CACV No.97 of 2012: 12 May 2012:[[5]]

http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/cases/hkca/2013/180.html

ADMIRALTY: IN REM JURISDICTION: CLAIM AGAINST VESSEL OWNED BY DEFENDANT: PAYMENT OUTSTANDING FOR BUNKERS SUPPLIED TO DEFENDANT FOR VESSELS CHARTERED BY RELATED COMPANY: STRIKING OUT: WHETHER DEFENDANT “IN POSSESSION OR IN CONTROL” OF CHARTERED VESSELS WITHIN SECTION 12B(4) OF HIGH COURT ORDINANCE

DMC/SandT/12/23

Singapore

Singapore Court of Appeal

The “Bunga Melati 5” [2012] SGCA 46: Judgment delivered by VK Rajah JA, 21st August 2012: [[6]]

ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION: WHETHER A GOOD ARGUABLE CASE ON THE MERITS REQUIRED: THE VASILIY GOLOVNIN EXPLAINED

DMC/SandT/12/19

Hong Kong

The “Decurion”

Hong Kong Court of First Instance: Reyes J: HCAJ No.141 of 2010: 4 May 2012: [[7]]

ADMIRALTY: IN REM JURISDICTION: CLAIM AGAINST VESSEL OWNED BY DEFENDANT: PAYMENT OUTSTANDING FOR BUNKERS SUPPLIED TO DEFENDANT FOR VESSELS CHARTERED BY RELATED COMPANY: STRIKING OUT: WHETHER DEFENDANT “IN POSSESSION OR IN CONTROL” OF CHARTERED VESSELS WITHIN SECTION 12B(4) OF HIGH COURT ORDINANCE

DMC/SandT/12/12

Malaysia

Sarawak Shell Berhad v South Sumatra Richfield Marine Pte Ltd (The “Red Gold”)

Malaysian Court of Appeal: Sulaiman Bin Daud JCA, Syed Ahmad Helmy Bin Syed Ahmad JCA and Anantham Kasinather JCA: 19 March 2012: [[8]]

ADMIRALTY: COLLISION BETWEEN OFFSHORE SUPPLY VESSEL AND FIXED OFFSHORE OIL PLATFORM: RIGHT OF VESSEL OWNERS TO LIMIT LIABILITY: WHETHER COLLISION CAUSED BY NEGLIGENCE OF OWNERS IN THE NAVIGATION OR MANAGEMENT OF VESSEL: WHETHER VESSEL OWNERS ENTITLED TO LIMIT LIABILITY DUE TO ABSENCE OF ACTUAL FAULT OR PRIVITY: MERCHANT SHIPPING ORDINANCE 1952 SECTION 360 VIZ. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY CONVENTION 1957

DMC/SandT/12/06

The “Oriental Baltic”

Singapore High Court: Tan Lee Meng J : [2011] 3 SGHC 75: [[9]]

OWNERS OF VESSEL UNDER VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION: IN REM PROCEEDINGS AGAINST VESSEL COMMENCED AFTER LIQUIDATION: PLAINTIFF FILED CAVEAT AGAINST RELEASE AGAINST VESSEL PRIOR TO LIQUIDATION: ACTION AGAINST COMPANY UNDER LIQUIDATION ORDINARILY STAYED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT: WHETHER LEAVE SHOULD BE GRANTED TO PLAINTIFF TO CONTINUE WITH ITS ACTION

DMC/SandT/12/01

The Netherlands

Furtrans Denzilick Ticaret Ve Sanayi AS (“Furtrans”) v Augusta Due Srl (“Augusta”): The "Constanza M”

Supreme Court of the Netherlands (“SCN”) (summary proceedings): Vice-President J.B. Fleers as Chairman and the judges A.M.J. van Buchem-Spapens, F.B. Bakels, C.E. Drion and G. Snijders LJN:BT2708, December 9, 2011:[[10]]

CONSTRUCTION OF ART. 3(4) SECOND PARAGRAPH, INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION RELATING TO THE ARREST OF SEA-GOING SHIPS 1952

DMC/SandT/11/27

Singapore

The Sahand

Singapore High Court : Quentin Loh J : [2011] SGHC 27:[[11]]

ARRESTS OF VESSELS IN SINGAPORE OWNED BY IRANIAN COMPANIES: ASSETS FREEZE IMPOSED BY UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS 1737, 1747, 1803 AND 1929: WHETHER SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS REQUIRE IMPOUNDMENT OR DETENTION OF VESSELS OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY DESIGNATED PERSONS OR ENTITIES OR THEIR SUBSIDIARIES: EFFECT OF ASSETS FREEZE ON ARREST OF SHIPS PURSUANT TO ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION OF COURT

DMC/SandT/11/23

Hong Kong

Birnam Ltd v The Owners of the Ship or Vessel “Hong Ming”, The “Hong Ming” Hong Kong Court of First Instance: Reyes J: HCAJ No.105 of 2011: 26 August 2011:[Hong_Ming]

WARRANT OF ARREST: SETTING ASIDE: CLAIM FOR OWNERSHIP OF VESSEL PURSUANT TO A TERMINATED CONTRACT FOR SALE OF VESSEL: MATERIAL NON-DISCLOSURE: MISUSE OF THE ARREST PROCESS

DMC/SandT/11/19

The Netherlands

Pianura Armatori SpA v Ferrari Shipping Agency G.A.The "Halcyon Star”

Court of Rotterdam (summary proceedings) : Mr A.F.L. Geerdes, LJN:BQ5031, October 7, 2010 (published May 19, 2011): [[12]]

ARREST CONVENTION 1952 ART. 3(4) SECOND PARAGRAPH: ARREST OF VESSEL OWNED BY A VESSEL MANAGER FOR MARITIME CLAIMS AGAINST THE VESSEL MANAGER RELATING TO OTHER VESSELS NOT OWNED BY THE MANAGER

DMC/SandT/11/18

England

The Owner of the Vessel “The Ocean Crown” and others v Five Oceans Salvage Consultants Ltd, “The Ocean Crown”

English High Court: Queen’s Bench Division (Admiralty Court): Gross J: [2009] EWHC 3040 (Admlty), [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 468: 26 November 2009:[[13]]

SALVAGE: ASSESSMENT OF REMUNERATION: WHETHER RISK OF FUTURE ECONOMIC DOWNTURN SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN APPLYING PRINCIPLE OF ENCOURAGEMENT: SCOPE OF THE PRINCIPLE IN THE AMERIQUE

DMC/SandT/11/15

Canada

Société Telus Communications, Hydro-Québec and Bell Canada v Peracomo Inc., Réal Vallée and the fishing vessel Realice

Federal Court of Canada: Harrington J.: 2011 FC 494: 27 April 2011:[[14]]

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/10/18

Hong Kong

The “Hua Tian Long”[[15]]

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/10/06

The “Catur Samudra” [[16]]

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

Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, Inc v The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship or Vessel “Asian Atlas” ; [17]

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

[18]

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