Bank of China Ltd, Macau Branch v. The Owner of Demise Charterer of the Ship or Vessel “Shen Long”
|
HCAJ 137/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ADMIRALTY ACTION NO. 137 OF 2011 ______________
HCAJ 138/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ADMIRALTY ACTION NO. 138 OF 2011 ______________
Before: Hon Reyes J in Chambers Date of Hearing: 30 January 2012 Date of Decision: 30 January 2012 _____________ D E C I S I O N _____________ 1.The Defendants’ solicitors apply for the Plaintiffs’ Notices of Motion for the sale of the vessels to be heard in Chambers (open to the public). 2.For some time now, the practice in the Admiralty Court has been as follows: Where it is anticipated that an Admiralty Motion is unlikely to be disputed, the Plaintiffs’ solicitors can write to the Court in advance to request that the Motion be heard in Chambers (open to the public). The Court will usually agree to such request, thereby enabling solicitors to address the Court at the hearing of the Motion without the need to instruct counsel. It is hoped that this practice will save costs so that, where (for instance) funds have been paid into Court upon the sale of a vessel or other res, more monies might be available for distribution. 3.The letter requesting a Chambers hearing is normally sent to the Court, and copied to any relevant parties, well in advance of the substantive hearing of the Motion. This is not only a matter of courtesy to the Court. The letter also alerts relevant parties to the possibility that the Motion will be heard in Chambers (open to the public). Those parties may then indicate to the Court and to the Plaintiffs’ solicitors in good time, whether the Motion will be disputed on the hearing day and whether those parties agree to the Motion being heard in Chambers (open to the public). Note that the Court may at its discretion still allow a Motion to be heard in Chambers (open to the public) even though the Motion is disputed, but that will only be in exceptional circumstances. 4.The practice just described applies to Motions for the sale of a vessel, Motions for judgment in default, and Motions for the determination of priorities. But the foregoing list is not meant to be exhaustive. 5.The Motions here are not disputed. The Defendants’ solicitors merely wish to assist the Court with the wording of the Order for sale. I therefore allow the application for the hearing to be in Chambers (open to the public). I adjourn the present Motions to Chambers (open to the public). 6.I shall now hear the applications for the sale of the vessels.
Mr Adrian Leung, instructed by Messrs Gallant Y T Ho & Co, for the plaintiff in both actions Ms Elizabeth A. Sloane, of Messrs Holman Fenwick Willan, for the defendant in both actions Messrs Ince & Co, for the 1st Caveator in HCAJ 137/2011 and 2nd Caveator in HCAJ 138/2011, absent Director of Legal Aid, for the 1st Caveator in HCAJ 138/2011, absent Messrs Blank Rome, for the 2nd Caveator in HCAJ 137/2011 and 3rd Caveator in HCAJ 138/2011, absent | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Further hearings and rulings under HCAJ 137/2011