CLOUTindex.
index.
Case 39: MAL 1(3) (b) (ii), 9
Hong Kong: High Court of Hong Kong (Kaplan J.)
Katran Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Kenven Transportation Ltd.
Published in English: 1992, Hong Kong Law Digest, G9
(Abstract prepared by Kaplan J.)
The defendant, a Hong Kong company, sought to have set aside a Mareva injunction that the court had granted the plaintiff, also a Hong Kong company. The issue before the court was whether it had jurisdiction to grant such an interim measure of protection, in view of the fact that a charter-party agreement entered by the plaintiff and the defendant contained an arbitration clause which provided that "any dispute will be settled before Hong Kong Arbitrators and under British Maritime law ...".
The court, relying on article 1(3)(b)(ii) MAL and its decision on Fung Sang Trading v. Kai Sun Sea Products and Food Co. Ltd. [see [...], case 20], found that MAL covered this dispute, since a substantial part of the obligations provided in the charter-party was to be performed outside Hong Kong.
The court held that the interim measure of protection referred to in article 9 MAL was wide enough to cover a Mareva injunction. "The protection afforded by a Mareva injunction" was held to be "the reduction in the risk of the amount of the claim, or part of it, being dissipated or otherwise put out of the plaintiff's reach before the resolution of the dispute".
The court concluded that it had jurisdiction to grant a Mareva injunction in support of
a domestic arbitration carried out in Hong Kong, both under article 9 MAL and s. 14(6) of
the Arbitration Ordinance which were identical in regard to domestic arbitration.
Additional Information published in later CLOUT issue (on "14 October 1994"):
Summarized and commented on by Kaplan, Spruce and Moser in Hong Kong and China Arbitration, Cases and Materials, Butterworths, 1994.
Additional Information published in later CLOUT issue (on "10 April 1995"):
Commented on by Kaplan in Asia LawJanuary/February 1995, 23.
Additional Information published in later CLOUT issue (on "12 July 1995"):
Cases 39-41, 57, 60-64, 76 and 78, reported on in English: [1992] The Arbitration and Dispute Resolution Law Journal (ADRLJ) 235, [1992] ADRLJ 240, [1993] ADRLJ 100 and [1994] ADRLJ 49, 295, 307, 291, 290, 298 respectively.
Additional Information published in later CLOUT issue (on "9 February 2000"):
Abstract published in English: [1995] Model Arbitration Law Quarterly Reports, Vol. 1, issue 3, 113
Text of the court decision published in English: [1995] Model Arbitration Law Quarterly Reports, Vol. 1, issue 3, 116
UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW
CASE LAW ON UNCITRAL TEXTS (CLOUT)
Abstracts of cases
This compilation of abstracts forms part of the system for collecting and disseminating information on court decisions and arbitral awards relating to Conventions and Model Laws that have emanated from the work of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). Information about the features of that system and about its use is provided in the User Guide (A/CN.9/SER.C/GUIDE/1).
The abstracts have been prepared by national correspondents designated by their Governments. It should be noted that neither the national correspondents nor anyone else directly or indirectly involved in the operation of the system assumes any responsibility for any error or omission or other deficiency.
__________
Copyright © United Nations 1993
All rights reserved.
Reproduced on this web site (www.interarb.com) with the kind permission of the United Nations, New York.
Database, typography, layout, etc. © interarb, 1999.