Benchmark Electronics (Thailand) Pcl and Others v. Cargo Contrainer Line Ltd

HCAJ 65/2016

[2018] HKCFI 2444

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ADMIRALTY ACTION NO. 65 OF 2016

___________________________

___________________________

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

1.This is the application of the Defendant (CCL BVI) for leave to appeal against the Decision of this court dated 9 April 2018 (reported at [2018] 2 HKLRD 617).

2.Having considered the submissions of Mr Luxton, who appears for CCL BVI, with care, I am unable to see any further advancement of the arguments previously made before this court. 

3.Mr Luxton has agreed that the kernel of this dispute is whether the “correct party” was sued by the Plaintiffs (see the Almerinda [2002] 1 HKC 75 at 79G-I).  In this case, the Plaintiffs intended to sue the contractual carrier and they had named the carrier in the Writ.  The only irregularity being the address of the carrier.  I am unable to agree that the Plaintiffs had not in such circumstances sued the correct party.

4.The authority of the High Court of Australia, Bridge Shipping v Grand Shipping [1991] 173 CLR 231 (not previously cited to the court), relies upon by Mr Smith SC, who appears for the Plaintiffs, tends to fortify the Decision.

5.I am inclined to agree with Mr Smith that the conclusion reached by the court that the amendment in question did not substitute one party for another is the only one that could be reached in light of the circumstances of this case.

6.In the premises, I am unable to agree that there is reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal.  This application is accordingly dismissed with costs to the Plaintiffs.

Mr Clifford Smith SC, instructed by Clyde & Co, for the 1^st to 9^th Plaintiffs

Mr Nick Luxton, instructed by Hill Dickinson Hong Kong, for the Defendant