The Champion Express, a Liberian-registered tanker, struck and destroyed the Princess Taiping, a small replica 15th century Chinese sailing vessel, in international waters off the coast of Taiwan. Approximately five months after the incident, the owner of the Champion Express initiated limitation proceedings before the Admiralty Court of the Court of First Instance of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, pursuant to the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976 (LLMC 1976). The crew and passengers of the Princess Taiping were served in the Hong Kong limitation proceedings.

Subsequent to service of the Hong Kong limitation proceedings, the crew/passengers of the Princess Taiping filed two separate federal US lawsuits against the tanker owners, this proceeding by US crew members, and another by Japanese crew members (see Kinjo v Champion Shipping AS (CMI1370)). The owners moved to dismiss both suits for forum non conveniens, in favour of the Hong Kong Admiralty Court litigation. The crew of the Princess Taiping were US (California/Hawaii) and Japanese nationals; and the crew of the Champion Express were Indian and Greek nationals.

Held: Hong Kong is an adequate and available alternative forum, and the balance of public and private factors favours dismissal on the basis of forum non conveniens.

This conclusion was justified, in part, by the adequate remedy available to plaintiffs under Hong Kong law. Specifically, Hong Kong Basic Law, through the Merchant Shipping Ordinance (Cap 434), has incorporated the LLMC 1976. The LLMC 1976, while limiting liability for shipowners for damage caused by or occurring on or in direct connection to their ship, allows for plaintiffs to recover fully when 'it is proved that the [plaintiff's] loss resulted from [the ship owner's] personal act or omission, committed with the intent to cause such loss, or recklessly and with knowledge that such loss would probably result' (Merchant Shipping (Limitation of Shipowners Liability) Ordinance (Cap 434), s 4, Sch 2). Pursuant to the LLMC 1976, once plaintiffs have filed and proved their claims, the Hong Kong court will distribute among them the amount of their proved claims, drawing from the limitation decree filed in that court by defendants (Merchant Shipping (Limitation of Shipowners Liability) Ordinance (Cap 434), s 12, Sch 2). Furthermore, with respect to their personal injury claims, plaintiffs will be required to prove largely the same elements and meet the same burden of proof in the Hong Kong Admiralty Court as they would in a US court. The Court's decision was informed by expert legal evidence provided by both the owner's counsel in the Hong Kong limitation proceeding, and by an independent legal expert regarding Hong Kong law and procedure.

Under the private interest factors - (1) the residence of the parties and the witnesses; (2) the forum's convenience to the litigants; (3) access to physical evidence and other sources of proof; (4) whether unwilling witnesses can be compelled to testify; (5) the cost of bringing witnesses to trial; (6) the enforceability of the judgment; and (7) all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive - the Court also found that the majority of the relevant witnesses and physical evidence/documents were concentrated in areas of Southeast Asia, were closer and more accessible to Hong Kong than to Sacramento, California, and would not be subject to compulsory attendance in a California proceeding.

Likewise, the Court held that the public interest factors - (1) local interest of lawsuit; (2) the court's familiarity with governing law; (3) burden on local courts and juries; (4) congestion in the court; and (5) the costs of resolving a dispute unrelated to this forum - also weighed in favour of transfer to Hong Kong, particularly given the complex choice of law analysis (collision in international waters between vessels sailing under different flags) and California's tenuous relationship to the incident (except for the de minimis fact that two of the plaintiffs were California citizens).