Case number: 39
Article number: model arbitration law / 1(3)(b)(ii); 9
Thessaurs issue:
Country of decision: United Kingdom
Year of decision: 1992
Type of decision: Judicial decision

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 A/CN.9/SER.C/ABSTRACTS/1, 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.