A cargo of 2,867 cartons of frozen salmon fillet strips, carried in 3 containers on board 3 vessels, were damaged in the course of sea transit from Gdynia, Poland to Singapore (before arriving at Lat Krabang, Thailand). This was due to an exposure to improper temperature in one of the containers during the sea leg of the multimodal carriage. The shippers, consignees, sellers and subrogated insurers of the cargo (plaintiffs) claimed a total loss of approximately HKD 629,000 from the contractual carrier and bailees for reward of the cargo (defendants) for inter alia, breach of their duties as bailees and/or breach of its duties under art 3.2 of the Hague-Visby Rules to properly and carefully load, handle, stow, carry, keep, care for, and discharge the goods carried. The defendants applied to transfer the case from the High Court to the District Court. The plaintiffs opposed the application for transfer for the following reasons. First, the case does not fall within the jurisdiction of the District Court. Second, the plaintiffs have a right to bring the action in the Court of First Instance by virtue of s 12B of the High Court Ordinance. Third, the case ought nevertheless to remain in the High Court and the High Court should exercise its discretion against ordering a transfer.

Held: Action to be transferred to the District Court.

For the first issue, there was nothing in the High Court Ordinance to suggest that the Court of First Instance had exclusive jurisdiction over such a claim. Additionally, the relevant question in this case was whether the plaintiffs’ claim fell within the terms of the statutory provisions conferring jurisdiction on the District Court (especially s 32 of the District Court Ordinance), and not whether it fell within s 12A of the High Court Ordinance. On s 32 of the District Court Ordinance, it was unnecessary to distinguish between contract and tort for its purposes, vis-à-vis the position under the older English County Courts Acts. An action in bailment should, depending on the facts of the particular case, be characterised as a claim founded on contract or on tort or on both, and not be regarded as sui generis and founded in neither. Accordingly, the claim in bailment posed no obstacle to the transfer of this action to the District Court.

For the second issue, s 12B(1) of the High Court Ordinance did not confer an absolute right for the plaintiffs to insist on their claim being heard and determined by the Court of First Instance, or detract from the provisions on transfer of proceedings in s 43 of the District Court Ordinance.

For the third issue, the issue on whether the Hague-Visby Rules applied compulsorily to the sea carriage was not so important or complex that the case ought to be tried in the High Court. The judge rejected the plaintiffs’ submission that judges of the District Court were not expected to have any knowledge of the Hague-Visby Rules. As the authorities show, cargo claims have frequently come before the District Court.