On 21 December 2005, a cargo vessel, which was owned by Zhongshan Foodstuffs & Aquatic Import & Export Group Co Ltd of Guangdong (the defendant), collided with a motor launch. The husband of Yip Kam (the plaintiff) drowned. The plaintiff issued a writ against the defendant. The plaintiff claimed damages arising out of her husband's death in the collision. The defendant alleged that the writ was not issued within the two-year limitation period stipulated by s 7(1) of the Merchant Shipping (Collision Damage Liability and Salvage) Ordinance (Cap 508), which was based on art 7 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law with Respect to Collisions between Vessels 1910 (Collision Convention 1910).

Held: The plaintiff's action was dismissed.

Article 7.3 of the Collision Convention 1910 provided that '[t]he grounds upon which the said periods of limitation may be suspended or interrupted are determined by the law of the court where the case is tried'. Good reasons must be shown to extend the limitation period.

Relevant factors in assessing whether there are good reasons for an extension might include the following:

1. The length of delay in issuing a writ;
2. Whether a defendant is to blame for any delay on the plaintiff's part;
3. Whether the delay is due to circumstances beyond the plaintiff’s control; and
4. Whether, if time is extended, there will be material unfairness, prejudice or injustice to the defendant.

The writ was issued about a month and a half after the two-year limitation period expired. The plaintiff's argument that she needed to wait for legal aid and the marine police investigation was not persuasive enough for the Court to extend the limitation period.