Hongkong Fir Shipping Case Study

CASE NOTE WRITING

Hongkong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd which was held in 1961 is a landmark case in English contract law area. There was a charter-party between the plaintiff who was the owner of the vessel called Hongkong Fir and the defendant who was the charterer. After the plaintiff breached the contract, the defendant repudiated the charter-party. While the plaintiff alleged that the cancellation was wrongful and unjustifiable. Than the trial judge supported the allegation by the plaintiff which caused an appeal by the defendant. The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The key facts and the ratio decidendi will be presented below. The judgments by Sellers LJ and Upjohn LJ held that the breaches of the controversial term were not serious enough to entitle the defendant to terminate. A new category of the term was

26, 1956, a time charter-party was signed between the owner, Hongkong Fir Shipping Co Ltd and the charterer, Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd for a period of 24 calendar months of hiring. The vessel was delivered at Liverpool to pick up her voyage at Newport News, than to proceed via the Panama Canal to Osaka. The whole sail was expected in about two months while Osaka was not reached until May 25, about five weeks after the expected date. The delay was due to the unseaworthiness of the vessel. And the reason for this unseaworthiness was the insufficiency and incompetence of the crew. The seaworthiness was required in Clause 1 of the charter-party contract by expressly stating in this way:”……she being in every way fitted for ordinary cargo service .”According to this term, which the defendant believed it was a condition, the charterer wrote to the owner cancelling the charter-party. The most important issued of this case being discussed in the early trail, was: Is the seaworthiness obligation a condition or warranty? That is, whether the breach of it will let the innocent party to be entitled to escape the