春季 Spring 2015
109春季Spring2015JOURNAL OF THE INSTITUTE OF SEATRANSPORTThe 2005 Hague Choice Of Court AgreementsConvention: A way of cutting down the costof international commercial arbitrationHave you ever had Legionella?
4Determining the Nature of Marine Insurance Transactionsfor Jurisdiction Purpose under the U.S. Law10船員優化計劃13Anselmo ReyesICSHK Column The 2005 Hague Choice Of Court Agreements Convention:A way of cutting down the cost of internationalcommercial arbitration19香港求助步驟22Have you ever had Legionella?252008 年以來國際乾散貨運輸市場簡要回顧 (3)34Best in Shipping at the Asia Women in BusinessLaw Awards 201436AA TALKSue & �生 曹文錦先生 董建成先生 崔崇堯先生杜寶明先生 程 義先生 曹慰德先生 顧建綱先生趙世光先生 潘裕國先生 顧建舟先生 蘇新剛先生鄭承忠先生 劉俊成先生 高彥明先生 張 良先生吳昌正先生 李 樺先生 黃偉綸先生海運學會2014/2016 年度理事如下 :主席： 蘇平治 榮譽主席：王德超副主席（內務）： 張嘉尹 �： 陳家迅 秘書（中文）：陳嘉豪副主席（總務 ）： 林 傑 財政：袁頌雅其他理事： 陳錦榮､張迅文､方 輯委員會：林 �､伍占美､黃治中､戴錫崑､Jon W. Zinke ､Paul Apostolis 章，文責自負。 — 編輯委員會啟 版權所有，不得翻載非賣品通訊地址 ： 香港上環干諾道中 152-155 號招商局大廈 16 樓 1605-7C 室香港郵政總局信箱 6081 號電話 ：(852) 2581 0003 傳真 ：(852) 2581 0004網址 ：www.seatransport.org電郵 ：info@seatransport.orgOwen Tang朱志統林傑Grenville Cartledge王守仁Ince & CoRaymond T C WongHonorary Presidents of the Institute :Dr. H.Sohmen, Mr. Frank Tsao, Mr. C.C. Tung, Mr. Tsui Shung Yiu, Mr. Du Bao Ming,Mr. Andrew Chen, Mr. Frederick Tsao, Mr. Kenneth Koo, Mr. George Chao, Mr. Stephen Pan,Mr. David Koo, Mr. Su Xin Gang, Mr. Edward Cheng, Mr. C. C. Liu, Mr. Gao Yan Ming,Mr. Zhang Liang, Mr. Wu Chang Zheng, Mr. Li Hua, Mr. Michael W.L. Wong2014/2016 Executive Committee Members are as follows :Chairman: So Ping ChiChairman (Emeritus) : Wong Tak Chiu, RaymondSecretary (English) : Chu Lik Fei, TerryVice Chairman (Internal Affairs) : Cheung Ka Wan, KarenVice Chairman (External Affairs) : Chan Carson, RoySecretary (Chinese) : Chan Ka Ho, DavinTreasurer: Yuen Chung Ah, MichaelVice Chairman (General Affairs) : Lam KitOther Executive Committee Members : Chan Kam Wing, Cheung Shun Man Manson, Fong Wai Victor,Koo Tse Hau Wellington, Lam Ming Fung Lothair, Lee Hing Wai Henry, Leung Wing Shun Basil,Shum Yee Hong, Tang Wai Ling Helen, Tsang Chiu Ming, Wong Chi Chung Peter,Wong Sai Fat, Yip Yan Pik Vicky.Legal Adviser : Rosita S.Y. LauEditorial Board :Lam Kit, Li Yiu Kwong, Tang Shung Tse, Gilbert Feng, Raymond Wong, Jimmy Ng, Wong Chi Chung,Tai Sik Kwan, Jon W. Zinke, Paul Apostolis, Brenda Chark, Barry Chen, Joseph Lau, Vicky Yip.“SEAVIEW” is the official quarterly journal of the Institute of Seatransport and is distributed free of charge to all membersof the Institute and related organisations. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without the writtenpermission of the publishers. The Journal of the Institute of Seatransport is a leading scholarly journal in the Englishand Chinese languages on maritime and shipping affairs in Greater China. All contributions are refereed. All opinionsor views stated in “SEAVIEW” are those of the respective authors and do not necessary reflect the views and opinions ofthe editor or publishers. No responsibility can be accepted for any errors or omissions.Not for sale copyright reservedCorrespondence Address : Room 1605-7C, China Merchants Building, 152-155 Connaught Road C, H.K.G.P.O. Box 6081, Hong KongTelephone: (852) 2581 0003Fax: (852) 2581 0004Website: www.seatransport.orgE-mail: info@seatransport.org承印 ： 鴻潤印刷公司地址 ： 香港黃竹坑業興街 11 號南匯廣場 B 座 10 樓 1016 - B 室電話 ： (852) 2552 7008傳真 ： (852) 2552 6384電郵 ： hungyuenprinting@gmail.comSEAVIEW 109 Issue Spring, 2015 Journal of the Institute of SeatransportPrinted By : Hung Yuen Printing PressAddress: Unit 1016-B, 10/F., Tower B, South Mark11, Yip Hing Street, Wong Chuk Hang, Hong Kong.Telephone : (852) 2552 7008Fax: (852) 2552 6384E-mail: hungyuenprinting@gmail.com3
Determining the Nature of Marine Insurance Transactions forJurisdiction Purpose under the U.S. LawOwen TangAbout 63 years later, the Court appliedIntroductionthe People’s Ferry rule in Thames TowboatU.S. admiralty law jurisdictionnormally includes most “ocean marine”insurance transactions, nevertheless thereare exceptions. It is quite difficult to finda bright line of subject-matter distinction,as the Supreme Court of the United Statesopined in Kossick v. United Fruit Co. (1961):Although precedent and usage are helpfulin drawing the conceptual boundariesof admiralty jurisdiction with regards tocontracts of a maritime and non-maritimenature, “the principle by reference to whichthe cases are supposed to fall on one side ofthe line or the other is an exceedingly broadone.”For example, a contract “to build”a vessel is excluded from admiraltyjurisdiction, while a contract “to repair” avessel is within the scope of the federalcourt’s admiralty jurisdiction. The rationalecan be traced back from a very old case:People’s Ferry Co. v. Beers (1857).The People’s Ferry used locality as thecriterion of separating maritime and nonmaritime contracts: For contracts which aremade on land and are to be performed onland, these contracts are not consideredto be of a maritime nature for purposes ofjurisdiction.4Co. v. The Schooner FRANCIS MCDONALD(1920) and opined that “the doctrine is nowfirmly established that contracts to constructentirely new ships are non-maritimebecause not nearly enough related to anyrights and duties pertaining to commerceand navigation.”Subsequent cases tended to emphasizemore on the follow factors:1)whether the contract relates tothe use of a vessel, or2)whether the contract relates tonavigation on navigable waters,or3)whether the contract relates tothe transportation of goods bysea or to maritime employmentIf there are more ‘yeses’ in the answersof the above three questions, then the U.S.courts will likely decide the contract be of a“maritime” nature and therefore within thescope of admiralty jurisdiction, regardlessof whether the contract will be performedSEAVIEW 109 Issue Spring, 2015 Journal of the Institute of Seatransport
on land or at sea. In fact, the U.S. Circuit2)It states the definition of theCourt in Massachusetts rejected the Englishproper measure of admiraltyrule (which emphasized the location ofjurisdiction of contracts inthe making of the contract shall be thegeneralstandard to determine its maritime or nonmaritime nature) in Justice Story's opinion3)in DeLovio v. Boit (1815).It determines that admiraltyjurisdiction embraces marineinsurance contracts.This paper submits that neither thelocation nor navigation guidelines seemRegardless of the guidelinesadequate in dealing with contracts ofmentioned in Insurance Co., they cannotmarine insurance transactions that includescover new facts that may have beenboth land and sea risks. The mixedunanticipated at the time of Justicenature associated with contracts of marineinsurance transactions makes categorizingthem a somewhat challenging judicialundertaking.1.Classifying the Nature of Contractsrelate to Marine InsuranceTransactionsIn general, under the U.S. law, marineinsurance policies, as well as the marine reinsurance policies, are maritime contractsthat are subject to U.S. federal admiraltyjurisdiction. However, the legal rationaleBradley’s decision. For example, in OffshoreLogistics Serv., Inc. v. Mutual Marine Office,Inc. (1978), the U.S. Court of Appeals hadto decide whether a District Court had theadmiralty jurisdiction to hear an action byan insured against its excess liability insurer.The Court held that the case came withinadmiralty jurisdiction because it was a suiton contract of marine insurance. However,eight years later, in Syndicate 420 at Lloyd'sLondon v. Early Am. Ins. Co. (1986), theU.S. Court of Appeals held that althoughmarine re-insurance is a maritime contractcannot be traced back to English commonsubject to admiralty jurisdiction, an errorslaw. The critical judicial standpoint wouldand omissions policy covering brokers' faultbe found in the 1870 Supreme Courtin obtaining re-insurance was not withinopinion in Insurance Co. v. Dunham (1870).admiralty jurisdiction. It seems that throughJustice Bradley’s opinion in Insurance Co.out history, many new jurisdiction issueselucidated three important points:concerning marine insurance transactionshave been decided on a case-by-case base.1)It represents the emancipation ofThe following table summarized some wellAmerican admiralty jurisdictioncited cases on certain maritime jurisdictionfrom the English common lawissues:SEAVIEW 109 Issue Spring, 2015 Journal of the Institute of Seatransport5
ActionYear decidedAdmiralty jurisdictionAn action to recover insurance premiums1879YesAn action for misrepresentation that was broughtunder a policy of marine insurance1893NoAn agreement to obtain marine insurance1931NoAn action on an oral contract of marine insurance1952YesWhether a claim for unpaid marine insurancepremiums would create a lien cognizable inadmiralty?1986YesAn action to interpret a marine insurance policy1987Yes2.Whether an action to Reforma Marine Insurance Policy fallswithin Maritime Jurisdiction?In Paul Marsh, Inc. v. Edward A.Goodman Co. (1985), the court held thatthe reformation of a policy of marineinsurance is not subject to admiraltyjurisdiction. Reformation of an insurancepolicy is a remedy available to an insurerwhen an otherwise valid insurance policydoes not, as written, fully or accuratelyexpress the agreement of the insurer andthe insured because of fraud, inequitableconduct, or mutual mistake. When thepolicy fails to accurately express the parties’intent in such instances, a court may reformthe policy to express the actual nature ofthe agreement between the parties. Legalscholars tended to see the decision in PaulMarsh as a confirmation of the rule thatrests on the longstanding principle that,although admiralty courts determine casesupon equitable principles, they do notgrant equitable relief. The key findings ofPaul Marsh are summarized as follow:6Facts of Paul MarshPlaintiff Paul Marsh, Inc. importeda shipment of hog bristles and stored thebristles in a warehouse in New York. Thebristles remained there for many years.Defendant Utical Mutual insured the bristlesagainst all risks of loss during storage atthe warehouse. When the Utica Mutualpolicy expired, Paul Marsh approachedits insurance broker, and broker arrangedto issue a binder on a policy of marineinsurance from Federal Insurance. Later,Paul Marsh learned that the warehousehad filed for reorganization under Chapter11 of the Bankruptcy Code. It immediatelygave the warehouse written instructionsto release all of its goods. At the very end,202 cartons of bristles were not delivered,and a subsequent search of the warehousefailed to uncover the missing bristles. As aresult, Paul Marsh sued against the brokerand the two insurance companies.SEAVIEW 109 Issue Spring, 2015 Journal of the Institute of Seatransport
In its complaint, Paul Marsh arguedthat this is a maritime claim on the groundthat the Utica Mutual and Federal Insurancepolicies were policies of ocean marineinsurance. At a final pretrial conference,the Court asked the parties why a loss ofthis nature constituted a maritime claim.The Court pointed out that the goods inquestion had not traveled the seas in manyyears.IssueThe issue is whether a contractof marine insurance with a warehouseendorsement is within the scope ofmaritime jurisdiction when the damageoccurred long after the completion of thetransport of the goods. This issue relatesto a broader issue of whether a contract ofmarine insurance covers a vessel that is nolonger engaged in commerce or navigationand is within the admiralty jurisdiction.This is an open question. Moore urged thatcontracts of marine insurance unrelated tocommerce or navigation should be “beyondthe jurisdiction of the admiralty.”DecisionIn Paul Marsh, the court made itsdecision by adopting the legal reasoningin City Stores Co. v. Sun Insurance Co.(1973) which held that a policy of marinecargo insurance did not cover goodsdestroyed before reaching the warehouse.The Paul Marsh court opined that “Similarreasoning leads this Court to conclude thatit lacks subject matter jurisdiction over theremaining claims against Utica Mutual andFederal Insurance. Once the hog bristlesarrived in the United States, were movedinland, and placed with the plaintiff’sgeneral inventory of bristles, they becamea simple inventory item in a warehouse.The bristles were then no longer a part ofa marine shipment. Regardless of whetherthey were still covered by the Utica Mutualpolicy, a policy insuring ocean transportas well as storage, the existence of suchcoverage would not subject Utica Mutual tothis Court's admiralty jurisdiction”.The Paul Marsh court finallyconcluded that the claimant lacked thesubject matter jurisdiction on a claimagainst the insurance companies becausethe “warehouse endorsement cannot befairly characterized as a marine insurancepolicy that would subject an insurer to thisCourt's admiralty jurisdiction”.ConclusionThis paper submits that neitherthe location nor navigation guidelinesseem adequate in dealing with thecontract of marine insurance transactionsthat embodies both land and sea risks.Instead of using a checklist approach tocategorize marine insurance transactionsinto maritime or non-maritime nature, theauthor suggests a principle-type approach.The maritime communities have to realizethat the primary rationale for the existenceof admiralty jurisdiction is to promotethe public interest in unified judicialsupervision of the maritime industry.SEAVIEW 109 Issue Spring, 2015 Journal of the Institute of Seatransport7
In the words of Professor Black: “Themain thing is that if the court of admiraltyis to exist at all, it should exist because thebusiness of river, lake, and ocean shippingcalls for supervision by a tribunal enjoyinga particular expertness in regard to themore complicated concerns of that business.If the federal government maintains sucha court, it must be because the providing ofsuch a tribunal, and the seeing it function,is a federal concern.”In conclusion, the proper questionto be asked in categorize the nature of acontract of marine insurance transactionis: Whether the claim bear a strongrelationship to such “federal cocern” ?(Mr. Owen Tang: Department of Logistics,Program Manager for MSc in Global SupplyChain Management from Hong KongPolytechnic University.)8SEAVIEW 109 Issue Spring, 2015 Journal of the Institute of Seatransport
SEAVIEW 109 Issue Spring, 2015 Journal of the Institute of Seatransport9
船員優化計劃朱志統船長 - 遠洋船之船長。1. 現況從人數上而言，小輪職公會約有 2 千會員。他們分別在渡輪、拖輪 ( 港口系泊大車 / 輪機長 - 遠洋船之機房主管。船主 - � )、油駁 ( 主要自航 �一個事士。理想資歷為大學畢業 ( �但業界普遍人手夠 ) ��計劃可以把本地及高級船員 - 展為船東3. �( 例如在希臘及中國 � ( 運河 �岸上發展之選擇。本 計 劃 其 實 並 不 複 雜， 也 易 理 解，2. �本地船船員 - �船員提升為遠洋船本地船長 - ��已入了行，很多大偈 - �不SEAVIEW 109 Issue Spring, 2015 Journal of the Institute of Seatransport
��班。4. 現行本地船員之入職及薪酬，見下表 :對持同等學歷 ( 中學畢業 ) �年齡限制。現在遠洋船之人工 :而且，岸上現時有大量人工 5 8 ��國 ( �機會，學員較成熟，強的國際性 �增大。歷。SEAVIEW 109 Issue Spring, 2015 Journal of the Institute of Seatransport11
5. �任及驗船主任 ( 要證書不要執照 岸上為佳，各人有獨立房保險 ( 船、貨、第三 �客船、海供 ( 鑽油 ) �令入行者卻步，( 朱志統船長：南運有限公司 )豈不可惜！6. 傳統上，一級遠洋船長及大車執照 ( 證書 – 與執照不同 ) �公司船長、海事處海事主12SEAVIEW 109 Issue Spring, 2015 Journal of the Institute of Seatransport
ICSHK Column The 2005 Hague Choice Of Court Agreements Convention: A way ofcutting down the cost of international commercial arbitrationAnselmo ReyesIntroductionArbitration is often touted asthe method of choice for resolvinginternational commercial disputes. It isthus commonplace today for contractsamong commercial enterprises based indifferent countries to include an arbitrationagreement. Unfortunately, the popularityof arbitration, the perception that arbitrationis the only practical and effective means ofresolving cross-border disputes, has led toarbitration becoming extremely expensive.Demand apparently exceeds the supply ofgood international arbitrators.In essence, businesses are advisedthat if they want to enforce decisions intheir favour in other countries, there isreally no alternative to arbitration. This isbecause arbitration awards are perceived tobe readily enforceable, in theory at least, inthe 152 countries which are parties to the1958 Convention on the Recognition andEnforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards(popularly known as the “New YorkConvention”). Litigation (it is thought) hasno equivalent mechanism by which thejudgment of a court in one country may beeasily enforced in a foreign jurisdiction.But there is now an alternative thathas the potential of making litigationcompetitive with arbitration as a meansof cross-border dispute resolution. Thatalternative is the 2005 Hague Conventionon Choice of Court Agreements.Basic mechanisms of theHague Choice of Court AgreementsConventionThe Hague Convention deals with thesituation where there is an exclusive choiceof court agreement. That is an agreementin writing designating the court of aContracting State to the Convention as thesole forum for deciding disputes arising outof the international commercial contract inwhich the choice of court clause is found.Article 3(d) provides for thesepa ra bility of the choice of courtclause from the rest of the internationalcommercial contract in which it isfound. This is akin to the principle of theseparability of arbitration agreements incommercial contracts.Article 5 provides that the courtdesignated by the choice of court clausewill have jurisdiction over a disputearising out of the underlying internationalcommercial contract. Such court “shallnot decline to exercise jurisdiction on theground that the dispute should be decidedin the court of another State”.SEAVIEW 109 Issue Spring, 2015 Journal of the Institute of Seatransport13
As a corollary, Article 6 stipulates thatthe courts of other Contracting States mustsuspend or dismiss proceedings broughtin contravention of a choice of courtagreement unless:(a)“the agreement is null and voidunder the law of State of thechosen court”;(b) “a party lacked capacity toconclude the agreement underthe law of the State of the courtseised”;(c)“giving effect to the agreementwould lead to a manifest injusticeor would be manifestly contraryto the public policy of the Stateof the court seised”;(d) “for exceptional reasons beyondthe control of the parties, theagreement cannot reasonably beperformed”; and,(e)Article 9 builds on the restrictions inArticle 8, by identifying the limited groundson which the courts of a Contracting Statemay refuse recognition or enforcement.Those grounds are that:(a)“the chosen court has decidednot to hear the case”.The combined effect of Articles 5 and6 is therefore that the designated court,and only that court, will have jurisdictionto determine a dispute arising out of aninternational commercial contract.There is, however, an additional stringto the Convention’s bow. That concernsthe issue of recognition and enforcementof the designated court’s judgment in other14Contracting States. Article 8 providesthat, when faced with an application forthe recognition and enforcement of thedesignated court’s judgment, there is tobe no review of the merits of the disputeby the courts of other Contracting States.The latter courts will be bound by thedesignated court’s findings of fact, unlessthe judgment sought to be enforcedwas one obtained by default. However,recognition of the designated court’sjudgment may be postponed by the courtof a Contracting state, if there is an ongoingappeal or review of the judgment in thestate of origin.“the agreement was null andvoid under the law of the stateof the chosen court, unless thechosen court has determined thatthe agreement is valid”;(b) “a party lacked the capacityto conclude the agreementunder the law of the requestedState [that is, the state in whichrecognition and enforcement ofthe judgment is being sought]”;(c)the defendant had insufficientnotice of the proceedings beforethe designated court;SEAVIEW 109 Issue Spring, 2015 Journal of the Institute of Seatransport
(d) “the [original] judgment wasobtained by fraud in connectionwith a matter of procedure”;(e)“recognition or enforcementwould be manifestlyincompatible with the publicpolicy of the requested State,including situations where thespecific proceedings leading tothe judgment were incompatiblewith fundamental principles ofprocedural fairness of that state”;(f) “the judgment is inconsistentwith a judgment given in therequested State in a disputebetween the same parties”; and,(g) “the judgment is inconsistentwith an earlier judgment given inanother State between the sameparties on the same cause ofaction, provided that the earlierjudgment fulfills the conditionsnecessary for its recognition inthe requested State”.The limited grounds for refusingrecognition and enforcement of a judgmentlisted in Article 9 may seem familiar. Thatis no accident. Article 9 was modelledafter the limitations to the recognition andenforcement of arbitral awards found inArticle 5 of the New York Convention.The combined effect of Articles 8and 9 is that only the designated court candecide commercial disputes arising out ofan international commercial contract and,that court having decided, its decisionmust be recognised and enforced by allContracting States, subject only to thefew limited grounds just specified. Themore countries sign up to the HagueConvention, the more widely and easilywill the judgments of a designated courtbe enforced elsewhere.The HagueConvention can do for litigation, whatthe New York Convention has done foraritration.A competition of modes of disputeresolutionOnce the Hague Convention comesinto operation, commercial parties willhave a choice of methods for resolvingcross-border disputes arising out of theircontract. If arbitration is perceived astoo expensive, parties can instruct theirlawyers to incorporate a choice of courtagreement in their commercial contract,in lieu of an arbitration agreement. Inother words, parties can opt for litigation(and not arbitration) as a means of disputeresolution. On the other hand, if litigationis perceived as too expensive, parties cando the reverse and tell their lawyers to putin an arbitration agreement, rather thana choice of court clause. The possibilityof readily enforcing judgments in otherjurisdictions under the Hague Conventionwill thus lead to a healthy competitionbetween litigation and arbitration as modesof dispute resolution. That competitionSEAVIEW 109 Issue Spring, 2015 Journal of the Institute of Seatransport15
would have the potential to bring downthe costs of both litigation and arbitration.Arbitration may still have someadvantages over litigation, even in a worldwhere the Hague Convention operates.For instance, arbitrations are typicallyconfidential. Court proceedings, on theother hand, are normally open to thepublic. But, by the same token, litigationwould have advantages over arbitration.For example, Court judgments are typicallysusceptible to appeal, whereas arbitrationawards are usually not. There is no reasonwhy the 2 dispute resolution modes shouldbe exactly the same. There will inevitablyalways be pluses and minuses betweenthe 2 dispute resolution products. It isprecisely the choice between the 2 that, itis hoped, will lead to dispute resolution byeither mode becoming more cost-effectiveand accessible for ordinary commercialbusinesses. The Hague Convention merelylevels the playing field between litigationand arbitration by counter-balancing theenormous advantage to the latter accordedby the New York Convention.of 2014. In that case, the Convention willcome into operation at some point laterthis year or the beginning of next.One of the tasks of the HagueConference (acting through its AsiaPacific Regional Office) is to persuadecountries in the Asia-Pacific (whetheror not Hague Conference members) toaccede to the Convention. In the courseof time, hopefully sooner rather than later,the momentum of countries joining theConvention will make the latter an effectivecounterpoise to the New York Convention,will bring litigation into its own as acompetitor to international commercialarbitration, and will lead to the greaterbenefit of all.Much remains to be done before theHague Convention becomes as popularamong states as the New York Conventionhas grown to be. In the meanwhile,everyone can help out by spreading theword about the Hague Convention andpersuading one’s home jurisdiction toconsider acceding to the instrument.ConclusionThe Hague Choice of CourtAgreements Convention has yet to comeinto operation. Currently, only Mexicohas acceded to the Convention. The USand European Union (EU) have signed,but they have yet to bring the Conventioninto force. It is anticipated that the EUwill accede to the Convention by the end16(Prof. Anselmo Reyes:Representative, Hague Conference onPrivate International Law, Asia-PacificRegional Office)(Prof. Anselmo Reyes is also Professor ofLegal Practice at The University of HongKong and former High Court Judge of HongKong. This article is derived from his talkSEAVIEW 109 Issue Spring, 2015 Journal of the Institute of Seatransport
on “Some Thoughts on Making ArbitrationMore Affordable” presented on 10 June2014 at The Mariners’ Club to the membersof The Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers,Hong Kong Branch and the shippingprofessionals.)SEAVIEW 109 Issue Spring, 2015 Journal of the Institute of Seatransport17
Maritime Law FirmIn association with Lam & Co.We have successfully represented substantial or state-owned shipowners, managers,charterers, P&I Clubs, hull underwriters and other related intermediaries in theshipping industry. The cases that we have handled include:ContentiousNon-contentiousDry Insurance covers – H&M / P&I / FD&D Carriage of goods-damage / short or non or mis-delivery Charterparty- demurrage / wrongful delivery / unsafe berth Defence to personal injuries by crew / stevedores Ship BuildingShip FinanceSale of shipShip RegistrationWet Collision Grounding Salvage香港灣仔軒尼詩道 338 號北海中心 11 樓 F 室Unit 11F, CNT Tower, 338 Hennessy Road, Wanchai, Hong KongTel: (852) 3590 5620 Fax: (852) 3020 4875E-mail: info@brendachark.com18SEAVIEW 109 Issue Spring, 2015 Journal of the Institute of Seatransport
�求助：(i)用海事甚高頻頻道 12、14 或 67 向船舶航行監察中心 (VTC) [ 呼號：海事MARDEP] 求助。(ii) 政府船隻可用甚高頻頻道 13 向政府船塢求助。(iii) 可打 999 ��號，其中一種是用甚高 頻 VHF 無 線 電 話 頻 道 16 叫 出 含 �上的 VHF 數碼選擇呼叫 (DSC) 頻道 70 �心 [ 呼號：香港救援或香港 MRCC 或 VRC] �號。除了海事頻道外，當然也可打 999 � 1989 �及救援協調中心 ( 緯10 以北至東經 120 ��平方浬。範圍見下圖。SEAVIEW 109 Issue Spring, 2015 Journal of the Institute of Seatransport19
�服務隊各地的 ��如事故發展至香 港 水 域 以 外，MRCC 便 會 隨 即 接 搜索20及救援上贏得國際美譽。( 多謝英國人「煩叔」Philip Weaver)( 林傑船長：Master Mariner, M.I.S., MH.)P.S. Philip Weaver, OBE (Master Mariner)was a Senior Marine Officer of MarineDepartment. He created HKMRCC since1989. He did the good jobs and have letHKMRCC famous over the world. He retiredin 1995.SEAVIEW 109 Issue Spring, 2015 Journal of the Institute of Seatransport
SEAVIEW 109 Issue Spring, 2015 Journal of the Institute of Seatransport21
Have you ever had Legionella?Grenville CartledgeStrange question you may think.“Of course not” most of you would say,however, the chances are that you willhave been exposed to Legionella bacteriumat some time without knowing it and manyof you will also have been infected, as thesymptoms of some strains of the virus arevery similar to influenza (flu).Water mist can contain legionellaIt is now widely accepted by thescientific and medical community that thecurrent statistical analysis of Legionellarelated illnesses is inaccurate and entirelymisleading. Most people will not botherseeing a doctor for flu-like symptoms andsimply rest and self-medicate until thesymptoms pass. If they do consult thedoctor, in most cases, he/she will normallydiagnose flu.There are over 40 different knownspecies of legionella bacteria - althoughlegionella pneumophila causes around90% of all infection. One type of legionellainfection is known as Pontiac Fever, arespiratory
Chairman : So Ping Chi Chairman (Emeritus) : Wong Tak Chiu, Raymond Vice Chairman (Internal Affairs): Cheung Ka Wan, Karen Secretary (English) : Chu Lik Fei, Terry Vice Chairman (External Affairs): Chan Carson, Roy Secretary (Chinese): Chan Ka Ho, Davin Vice Chairman (Gen
2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 . Removal handle Sound output / wax protection system. 11 Virto V-10 Custom made shell Battery door Volume control (optional) Push button Removal handle . Before using
1) Explain the term ‘Spring Boot’. It is a Spring module that offers Rapid Application Development to Spring framework. Spring module is used to create an application based on Spring framework which requires to configure few Spring files. 2) Mention some advantages of Spring Boot Here are som
SX85/SX105 2008-2015 SX125 2004-2006 Shock Fork spring Shock spring Fork spring spring 43,2 63 Standard spring 38 59 Standard spring -425 3,4-220 35-505 4,2-250 72 Rider weight Rider weight 30-35 kg 2,8 AT REQ. 45-55 kg AT REQ. 63 35-40 kg 3,0 30 55-65 kg 3,8 66 40-45 kg 3,2 30 65-75 kg 4,0 69
Spring Volume 22 Number 3 Summer Volume 22 Number 3 Convention Volume 23 Number 1 1988 Winter Volume 23 Number 2 Spring Volume 23 Number 3 Summer . Spring Summer Fall 2015 Winter Spring Summer Fall 2016 Winter Spring Summer Fall 2017 Winter Spring Summer Fall 2018 Winter Spring Summer Fall . Author: Joan Thomas
Beginning Jan 1, 2015 All year All year All year All year February, 2015 May, 2015 August, 2015 All year All year All year All year All year All year Fall 2015, Spring 2015 Fall 2015, Spring 2015 In some cases, there is a limit to the number of times you can complete the same type of activity in a program year (Oct. 1, 2014 - Sept. 30, 2015).
Alter Metal Recycling . 13 . 9/21/2015 156.73 9/24/2015 66.85 9/27/2015 22.24 9/30/2015 35.48 10/3/2015 31.36 10/6/2015 62.97 10/9/2015 36.17 10/12/2015 80.48 10/15/2015 84.99 10/18/2015 90.93 10/21/2015 82.
Phonak Bolero V70-P Phonak Bolero V70-SP Phonak Bolero V50-M Phonak Bolero V50-P Phonak Bolero V50-SP Phonak Bolero V30-M Phonak Bolero V30-P Phonak Bolero V30-SP CE mark applied 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 This user guide is valid for: 3 Your hearing aid details Model c
13 Fri Commencement at 7:00 p.m. SPRING SEMESTER 2020 Jan 6 Mon Registration ends for all Spring terms (Spring, Spring 1, and Spring 2) 6 Mon Spring and Spring 1: Classes begin 13 Mon Application for Program Completion Opens -- May Completers 29 We
