Tag: <span>maritime</span>

Case: No fault even mis-lading goods

 Case Name:

New National Assurance Company Limited Vs. Shanghai RIJIN-TOP Express International Forwarding Co., Ltd.
 
Citation:
Shanghai Maritime Court of PRC (SMC), Civil Judgment (2004) TMC (Chu) No. 492
Judges: Xin Hai (C. J.), Qian Xu, Sun Ying-wei
Date: 21 April 2005
 
Rules:
If the shipper did not notified the carrier the special features of the goods, the carrier should not be liable to the damages even there was an inappropriate lading by the carrier and/or his employees for no fault were found in the case.
 

A case on recognizing the arbitral awards in China

Name:
Vysanthi Shipping Company Limited V. China Grains, Oils and Feedstuffs Co., Ltd, etc.
 
Citation:
Tianjin Maritime Court of PRC (TMC), Civil order in Writing(2004) TMC (Que) No.1
 
Summary of Facts:
The dispute between the applicant and the first defendant on the B/L of Joanna V Ship issued on 28 June 1996 had been heard by the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) and an award was issued on 14 March 2001. According to the award, the applicant should obtain USD 367,136.86 in general average contribution (G.A.C.) and USD 28,500 in damages of resorting. The applicant should also obtain the interest on 7% per year of the above amount. The interest of damages of resorting (USD 28,500) will be calculated from 1 August 1996. The commencement time for calculating the G.A.C interest, however, would depend on the negotiation result between the applicant and the first defendant. If their negotiation failed, the arbitration court would decide the date. The end dates of both damages’ interest are the day when the first defendant made the de facto payment to the applicant. On 20 June 2001, LCIA made the second award in that the commencing date of calculating the interest of resorting damages should be 12 July 1996. In the same award, the arbitration fees in two arbitration procedure were decided to be paid by the first defendant. On 13 February 2002, the third award was made to confirm that the cost of the whole dispute should be paid by the first defendant….