The Owners Of The Ship Or Vessel “Tintomara” (Imo 9234599) Of The Port Of Monrovia, Liberia v The Owners Of The Ship Or Vessel “Phuong Dong Star” (Imo Number 9404572) Of The Port Of Saigon, Vietnam

CourtCourt of First Instance (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date15 July 2020
Neutral Citation[2020] HKCFI 1619
Subject MatterAdmiralty Action
Judgement NumberHCAJ34/2020
HCAJ34/2020 The owners of the ship or vessel “TINTOMARA” (IMO 9234599) of the port of Monrovia, Liberia v. The owners of the ship or vessel “PHUONG DONG STAR” (IMO number 9404572) of the port of Saigon, Vietnam

HCAJ 34/2020

[2020] HKCFI 1619

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ADMIRALTY ACTION NO. 34 OF 2020

Admiralty action in rem against: the ship or vessel: “PHUONG DONG STAR” (IMO number 9404572) of the port of Saigon, Vietnam

___________________________

BETWEEN

The owners of the ship or vessel “TINTOMARA” (IMO 9234599) of the port of Monrovia, Liberia Plaintiffs
and
The owners of the ship or vessel “PHUONG DONG STAR” (IMO number 9404572) of the port of Saigon, Vietnam Defendants

___________________________

Before: Hon Anthony Chan J in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 15 July 2020
Date of Decision: 15 July 2020

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________


1. The issue between the parties this morning is quite technical. The Defendants are unhappy for a court order to be made pursuant to their Agreement with the Plaintiffs dated 22 May 2020. It was said that the Agreement was not made on the basis that there will be an order of the court in the terms of the Agreement.

2. I have to say that I find the submission a little puzzling because according to the terms of O 75, r 35 and the practice set out in Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2020, vol 1, rubic 75/35/2, an agreement between litigants will ultimately become an order of the court.

3. Moreover, paragraph 3 of the Agreement provided that failing agreement by the parties the quantum of the Plaintiffs’ claim is to be assessed by the Registrar, and I agree with the Plaintiffs that a reference to the Registrar will require a court order: see O 75, r 41(1).

4. I am not attracted by the Defendants’ suggestion that the matter should go back to the Registrar for consideration whether the Agreement should be fiated. Such a course will be against the underlying objectives of expeditious and costs effective resolution of proceedings under O 1A, r 1.

5. I do not believe that it is necessary for the court to resolve this technical obstacle because in light of the evidence before the court it would be appropriate for this court to make an order to reflect paragraph 3 of the Agreement. I would allow the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT