PARAKOU SHIPPING PTE LTD v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "JIN KANG (ex "CANTON TRADER")

HCAJ 132/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ADMIRALTY ACTION NO. 132 OF 2009

____________

Admiralty action in rem against: the ship or
vessel “JIN KANG (ex “CANTON TRADER”)

BETWEEN

____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  In my view Jin Kang’s applications for strike out and for a declaration of no jurisdiction should be dismissed.

2.  I shall assume, without necessarily accepting, that Jin Kang’s applications are procedurally well-founded. I say this because it seems to me that there is force in Mr Sussex’s submission that both applications are either premature or misconceived procedurally.

3.  But let me assume that the applications are procedurally valid.

4.  In my view, there is an arguable case on the evidence presently before the court that, at the time of the misrepresentation in mid June 2008, Jin Kang was in control of the vessel “CANTON TRADER”. Otherwise (as Mr Sussex SC pointed out) there would be difficulty in explaining the back-to-back charterparties dated 17 June 2008, respectively between Jin Kang and Galsworthy and allegedly between Galsworthy and Parakou. Arguably, there could be in rem jurisdiction.

5.  Further, it seems to me that there is a case for saying (contrary to Mr Coleman SC’s submission) that a cause of action has accrued. If Parakou is right on its misrepresentation case, as at mid-June 2008 it would have incurred a liability to Galsworthy under a charterparty. On this hypothesis, but for the misrepresentation Parakou would not have incurred such liability. The liability may not be quantifiable until later. But that does not prevent damage (in the form of a liability) from having been incurred.

6.  Therefore, however one looks at the matter, it would be wrong for me at this stage to strike out the in rem writ or to declare that this court has no jurisdiction.