Pramod Victor Simon and Others v. The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship or Vessel "Hero Ii" (Panamanian Flag)
Read the full judgment text of HCAJ 131/2000 on BabelCite. This HCAJ judgment was delivered on 31 May 2000.
1. I have before me an application by 11 plaintiffs for the release of the vessel "Hero II" which was arrested at the instance of the plaintiffs.
|
HCAJ000131/2000 HCAJ131/2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ADMIRALTY ACTION NO.131 OF 2000 ------------------------- Admiralty Action in rem against : the ship or vessel "HERO II" -------------------------
--------------------- Coram: Hon Waung J in Chambers Date of Hearing: 31 May 2000 Date of Judgment: 31 May 2000 ---------------------- J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. I have before me an application by 11 plaintiffs for the release of the vessel "Hero II" which was arrested at the instance of the plaintiffs. 2. The plaintiffs, having reached settlement with the defendant yesterday, sought the release of the vessel. But there was a stumbling block because Ince & Co., on behalf of the caveators, Siam A.S. Engineering Co. Ltd of Thailand, had entered a caveat on 29 May 2000 against the release of the vessel "Hero II". 3. Mrs Poon, in her affidavit and today, at the hearing, informed me that she had been in communication with Ince & Co. as to the release of the vessel, and that she was given the assurance that Ince & Co. are signing the necessary release and withdrawing the caveat. However, apparently at about 1 o'clock today, Ince & Co. has changed their mind and said that they are considering seeking additional security from the vessel and therefore are not prepared to sign the necessary release. It is in these circumstances that the application was made to me on behalf of the plaintiffs by Mrs Poon for the necessary order. 4. Under Order 75, rule 13(3), release could not be issued when there is a caveat in force, and of course there is a caveat in force, and therefore the only way a release can be effected would be under Order 75, rule 13(3)(b) where the court so orders. In the circumstance of this case, I so order the vessel to be released, notwithstanding that a minute ago the Chief Bailiff has put before me the signed praecipe for withdrawal of the caveat of Ince & Co. 5. Mrs Poon, on behalf of the plaintiffs, also asked for costs against the caveators. She said she has spent nearly 21/2 hours to 3 hours in preparing the application as soon as she found out that Ince & Co. are resisting an immediate release, therefore the costs of the application should be paid by Ince & Co. I agree. I summarily assess the costs of the plaintiffs' solicitors in the sum of $5,000 by way of gross sum assessment. I order, pursuant to Order 75, rule 14(2), that the caveators, Siam A.S. Engineering Co. Ltd, should pay the plaintiffs the costs of the application in the gross sum assessment of $5,000. The plaintiffs' own costs be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations.
Representation: Mrs Sandy Poon, Legal Aid Counsel, for the Plaintiffs Mr Cross of Messrs Ince & Co., for the Caveators Mr C.W. Tsang, Chief Bailiff |