The Owner of the S.S. "Illinois" v. The Owner of the Vessel "Oceantramp" and Another
Read the full judgment text of on BabelCite. was delivered on 19 May 1969.
1. On the 19th April the plaintiffs succeeded in their claim for damages against the owners of the vessel OCEAN TRAMP arising out of a collision in Hong Kong waters between the OCEAN TRAMP and the ILLINOIS on the 5th September, 1964. They were awarded damages in the sum of $1,004,221.23. In their petition, which was filed as far back as the 24th May, 1967, the plaintiffs claimed damages and interest thereon at such rate and at such period as may be just. They now claim interest, not as from the
|
HCAJ000004A/1965 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION ACTION NO. 4 OF 1965 -----------------
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION ACTION NO. 8 OF 1966 -----------------
----------------- Coram: Rigby, S.P.J. in Court. Date of Judgment: 19 May 1969 ----------------- DECISION ----------------- 1. On the 19th April the plaintiffs succeeded in their claim for damages against the owners of the vessel OCEAN TRAMP arising out of a collision in Hong Kong waters between the OCEAN TRAMP and the ILLINOIS on the 5th September, 1964. They were awarded damages in the sum of $1,004,221.23. In their petition, which was filed as far back as the 24th May, 1967, the plaintiffs claimed damages and interest thereon at such rate and at such period as may be just. They now claim interest, not as from the date on which the collision occurred, but as from the 20th October, 1964, being the date upon which the bill for repairs carried out on the ILLINOIS as the result of the collision, was settled by them. Mr. Gittins, for the plaintiffs, asks for interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum as from the date of payment of the bill until judgment, and interest at the same rate as from that date until final payment. Mr. Mills-Owens has drawn my attention to two recent cases, the case of The ABADESA(1) and the case immediately following that, the case of The MECCA(2). In both these cases the sum of 5 1/2 per cent was awarded as interest; that, indeed, being an increase over the amount of 4 per cent that had hitherto been awarded in such cases. Mr. Mills-Owens submits that I ought to follow the English cases and award 5 1/2 per cent as interest or a maximum of 6 per cent. Mr. Gittins, on the other hand, has referred me to the reported case of The Indo-China S.N. Co., Ltd v. The Ship Montrose(3). That is a case that was decided as far back as 1924, and the then Acting Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Gompertz, said in the course of his judgment: -
For myself I would have been disposed to award interest at the rate of 6 per cent in this case. But if interest at 8% was considered to be the appropriate rate in 1924, I think it would be quite wrong for me now, in 1969, when the value of money has increased so considerably since that date, to fix a lower rate of interest than in 1924. In those circumstances and following that case the amount that I award is interest at 8 per cent per annum as from the 20th October, 1964 until the 19th April, 1969, being the date of judgment, and interest thereafter at the same rate of 8 per cent per annum as from the 20th April, 1969, until payment. 2. The other matter which is before me concerns the claim for fees which have already been paid to Captain King, who has advised the plaintiffs in an expert capacity both before the filing of the writ and throughout the period up to the determination of the case. The claim made in the draft order which I have been asked to approve is that the plaintiffs' costs shall include the sum of $12,000.00 paid by the plaintiffs to their marine consultant, Captain L. King. A document which has been put before me by Mr. Gittins, for the plaintiffs, indicates in a very general manner the type and quality of work upon which Captain King was asked to, and did in fact, give advice. Mr. Mills-Owens has criticized that document in that it does not condescend to particulars of the actual work done by Captain King. I feel bound to say that in my view the sum of $12,000.00 is extremely high and I would in no way be prepared to accede to the application which is now before me. I think that the best and fairest course is for me to make no order in this matter but simply refer the matter to the taxing master for him to deal with and make his decision thereon. 3. I accept the fact - indeed, it cannot be challenged - that the plaintiffs were clearly entitled to some expert assistance in the matter of preparing their case, and it would seem entirely right and proper that some quantum of costs should be awarded to them to recover the monies that they have already paid out to Captain King. But as to the precise quantum I think it would be far more satisfactory that I should leave this matter for the decision of the taxing master. Subject to that I shall make an order in the terms of the draft order which has been produced to me. Representation: Gittins, Q.C. & C. Ching (Deacons) for plaintiffs. Mills-Owens (Hastings & Co.) for defendants. A. Zimmern (F. Zimmern & Co.) for Third party. (1) (1968) 2 A.E.R. 726 (2) (1968) 2 A.E.R. 731 (3) 19 H.K.L.R. 91 |