Astrofiel Armadora Sa v. The Owners of the Ship or Vessel "Baek Ma Kang"(Dprk Flag) and Others

CACV000206/1996

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1996, No. 206

(Civil)

______________

______________

Coram: Nazareth VP, Bokhary & Liu JJA in Court

Date of hearing: 16, January 1997

Date of judgment: 16, January 1997

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Bokhary JA:

1. We are satisfied that this appeal must be allowed so as to renew the writ for a further period of twelve months commencing from October 24, 1996. And we do so.

2. We do not propose to say very much. There may be interesting points here; but ex parte proceedings are not the best medium for settling controversial points. Furthermore, it is necessary to avoid saying anything which might prejudice the future disposal of this action.

3. Suffice it to say this. Mr Justice Waung, entertaining the application on paper, was not satisfied, on how things appeared from what he had before him, that he ought to renew the writ. In those circumstances, one would have expected him to invite oral submissions. But instead he dismissed the application on paper.

4. We have considered sending the matter back to the judge for him to deal with it on the oral submissions which counsel, if given the opportunity to present them, would have presented. However, matters should be made as expeditious and economical as possible. And looking at the whole of the material before us, we are satisfied that we should order the renewal ourselves. That is why we have done so.

5. If these reasons are not very full, that is dictated by the need to avoid prejudicing the future disposal of this action.

[Costs are reserved to the judge before

whom the action eventually comes]

Representation:

Mr John D Kerr ( instructed by M/S Sinclair, Roche & Temperley) for the appellant ex parte