• Journal Name: China Law
• Year: 2021
• Issue: 4
• Page: 139

On August 16,2021, the Supreme People's Court issued 10 typical maritime trial cases across China in 2020, which have four characteristics.

First, Serve the overall situation and secure marine ecological civilization and marine economic construction. We heard, in accordance with the law, disputes brought by marine administrative authorities over compensation for damage to marine natural resources and the ecological environment caused by oil spills from ships, strengthened the protection and restoration of marine ecosystems, and boosted a marine ecological and environmental protection system. We properly heard disputes over maritime yacht insurance contracts, boosted the expansion of the shipping service industry chain, and provided strong judicial guarantee to support the high- quality construction of Hainan Free Trade Port.

Second, implement the high-quality strategy and strive to enhance the international influence of maritime justice. The foreign parties agreed to change the dispute settlement method of foreign arbitration, and chose to sue in the maritime court and apply Chinese law, which fully reflected their recognition of the professional judicial ability of the Chinese maritime court. The efficient seizure and auction of foreign ships and the timely placement of foreign crew members provide a “China plan” to properly solve the global crew shift or repatriation problems during the COVID-19 pandemic and protect the legitimate rights and interests of crew members. We gave full play to the effectiveness of “Internet plus trial”, and insisted on the “no closing” of the judicial service during the epidemic prevention period, so as to ensure the orderly and smooth international transportation of the epidemic-related supplies, and highlight the efficiency and wisdom of China's maritime justice.

Third, accurately apply the law and constantly strengthen the exemplary and guiding role of typical cases. We clearly defined the standard that the responsible person lost the right to limit maritime claims liability on the ground that the ship was unseaworthy, warned the risk of illegal navigation, guided the ship owners and operators to cultivate the awareness of safe navigation, strengthen ship safety management, so as to regulate the shipping industry.

Fourth, explore ways to identify extraterritorial laws and constantly enhance the international credibility of maritime justice. We deepen the integration and introduction of trial resources, improve the system where people from Hong Kong and Macao serve as jurors, promote the connection of legal rules and mechanisms between Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao, and help build the rule of law in the Guangdong- Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area. We fully respect the parties' choice and application of foreign laws, explore and establish the rules for the identification and application of case law, improve the maritime judicial ability, and avail China become the preferred place for the settlement of international maritime disputes.

Case 1. Dispute over compensation for marine natural resources and ecological environment damage, Ocean and Fishery Bureau of Xiuyu District, Putian City v. Jaspero Shiptrade S.A.

[Basic Facts]

On September 22,2018, the Panamanian ship “APL LOS ANGELES” owned by Jaspero Shiptrade S.A.(hereinafter referred to as Jaspero) hit the reef and ran aground during its departure from Jiangyin Port, Fuzhou. Fuel leaking from the damaged hull damaged the aquaculture, marine ecological environment and fishery resources in the sea area. Jaspero established a limitation fund for maritime claims liability in Xiamen Maritime Court. The Ocean and Fishery Bureau of Xiuyu District, Putian City filed a lawsuit for compensation for damage to marine natural resources and ecological environment, and 905 fishermen who suffered oil pollution damage filed another lawsuit to claim for the loss of breeding facilities and breeding income.

[Results of the Adjudication]

After accepting the case, Xiamen Maritime Court conciliated among the Ocean and Fishery Bureau of Xiuyu District, Putian City, Jaspero and fishermen, and facilitated the three parties to reach a mediation agreement. Jaspero compensated for the damage to marine natural resources and ecological environment, fishermen's breeding facilities and loss of breeding income. After announcing the mediation agreement, Xiamen Maritime Court made a civil mediation statement, and Jaspero had paid the compensation according to the agreement.

[Significance]

This case is a dispute over compensation for damage to marine natural resources and ecological environment filed by China's marine administrative organ. The maritime court organized three judges and four people's jurors to hear the case, invited eco-environmental technical experts to participate in mediation, announced the acceptance of the case and the content of the mediation agreement, simultaneously expanded judicial democracy, ensured and promoted public participation in marine environmental governance and boosted professional trial of the case, so as to improve the credibility of marine ecological trial, as well as comprehensively improve, optimize and consolidate the judicial protection of marine ecology. The proper handling of this case according to law, on the one hand, enables the marine administrative organ to obtain reasonable compensation for ecological environment losses and restoration costs in time, provides strong support for the restoration of ecological environment and fishery resources in the accident sea area, and protects the beautiful ocean; On the other hand, the legal rights and interests of Chinese and foreign parties are equally protected according to law, highlighting the specialization and modernization level of China's marine ecological judicial protection, and fully demonstrating and disseminating China's judicial concept, judicial system and judicial results of marine natural resources and ecological environment protection to the international industry.

Case 2. Dispute over ship collision liability, Institute of Hydrobiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences v. Yangzhou Runhang Shipping Co., Ltd., Cheng, Zhu and Yangzhou Central Branch of China United Property Insurance Co., Ltd.

[Basic Facts]

On September 14,2016, during the voyage of “Runhang 88” in the Longchuanqi water area of Luzhou, Sichuan in the upper reaches of the Yangtze River, due to improper manipulation, it touched the “Lujiang Aquaculture No.5” aquaculture facility set on the right bank of the Yangtze River, seriously damaging the Coreius guichenoti domesticated and bred within. Institute of Hydrobiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, the responsible party of the scientific research project of Coreius guichenoti involved in the case, had a dispute with the ship owner, ship operator and ship insurer of “Runhang 88” over accident losses and liability.

[Results of the Adjudication]

The first instance of Wuhan Maritime Court held that the owner and operator of “Runhang 88” should bear the liability for tort damages. The accident involved in the case led to huge losses in biodiversity research in the Yangtze River Basin. According to the appraisal results of the Coreius guichenoti's value involved in the case by the East China Sea Fishery Research Institute Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences, the owner and operator of the ship “Runhang 88” in the first instance shall compensate the Institute of Hydrobiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences for the economic loss of RMB 3,567,316. None of the parties appealed upon the judgement.

[Significance]

The Yangtze River is known as the mother river of the Chinese nation. In recent years, affected by river damming, water pollution, overfishing, waterway regulation and other business activities, the biodiversity of the Yangtze River declines constantly, the situation of aquatic biological protection is grim, and the task of water ecological restoration is extremely arduous. With the continuous expansion of the development strategy of the Yangtze River economic belt and the promulgation and implementation of the Yangtze River Protection Law of the People's Republic of China, protection and restoration of the ecological environment in the Yangtze River Basin, rational and efficient utilization of resources and ecological security have become the common goal of the whole nation. The trial has clarified the value identification standards of ecological and environmental protection scientific research projects. It plays a positive, normative and leading role in effectively saving fish species at extremely dangerous levels through judicial means, comprehensively strengthening the protection of aquatic biodiversity in the Yangtze River Basin, maintaining the stability of the Yangtze River ecosystem and the safety of the ecological environment, and promoting the green and sustainable development of the Yangtze River Economic Belt.

Case 3. Dispute over marine insurance contract, Li and Lin v. Shenzhen Branch of Tian'an Property Insurance Co., Ltd.

[Basic Facts]

On April 25,2019, the “Winnie” yacht owned by Li and Lin took part in the sailing regatta and ran aground on the way back to Sanya. During the rescue process, the yacht sank and lost due to typhoon, forming a total loss. After Li and Lin's claim to Tian'an Property Insurance Co., Ltd. Shenzhen Branch was rejected, they filed a lawsuit to the court.

[Results of the Adjudication]

Haikou Maritime Court held in the first instance that the accident belonged to insurance liability. The yacht involved in the case held a valid airworthiness certificate, the driver had the corresponding driving qualification, and the latest electronic chart was equipped at the time of the incident. The insurer's defense that the yacht involved in the case was not equipped with a paper chart was unseaworthy and in violation of the warranty obligation cannot be established. The first instance held that the insurer shall pay the insurance compensation involved in the case to Li and Lin. The Higher People's Court of Hainan Province concluded the case through mediation in the second instance.

[Significance]

Yacht economy, as a characteristic industry of Hainan, is an important part of constructing Hainan international tourism consumption center and embodies the construction effectiveness of Hainan free trade port. This case is a maritime insurance contract dispute caused by a sinking yacht crushed on a reef. The court of first instance strictly distinguished the causes of the accident from the insurance liability, and took the scope of comprehensive insurance liability, whether it belongs to exclusions and other factors into consideration to determine that the insurer shall bear the insurance liability. The court of second instance spent more efforts in mediation to resolve contradictions, so as to achieve “matters ended with case”. The trial fully protects the legitimate rights and interests of yacht owners, boosts the confidence of yacht tourism market, stimulates the consumption potential of yacht tourism, and provides a strong judicial guarantee for the sustainable and healthy development of Hainan yacht industry and the high-quality construction of Hainan free trade port.

Case 4. Dispute over bareboat charter guarantee contract, Yili Shipping Co., Ltd.v. Shi and other people

[Basic Facts]

Shi and others, as joint and several guarantors, signed Personal Guarantee with the owner Yili Shipping Co., Ltd., in which the jurisdiction clause provided that the guarantor accepted the exclusive jurisdiction of Hong Kong court, and that the owner was not limited to bring a lawsuit in other courts. Yili Shipping Co., Ltd.filed a lawsuit with Xiamen Maritime Court to order Shi and others to bear joint and several guarantee liability. Shi raised a jurisdictional objection on the ground that the Hong Kong court had exclusive jurisdiction over the case.

[Results of the Adjudication]

The Xiamen Maritime Court held in the first instance that the agreement on jurisdiction in Personal Guarantee was an asymmetric exclusive jurisdiction clause, that was, only when the creditor chose the Hong Kong court to sue would the Hong Kong Court have exclusive jurisdiction, but it did not exclude the creditor's right to choose to sue in other courts outside Hong Kong. This clause shall be deemed valid. Yili Shipping Co., Ltd.chose Xiamen Maritime Court instead of Hong Kong court, which was in line with the contract and Chinese mainland laws. The court of first instance rejected Shi's objection to jurisdiction. The Higher People's Court of Fujian Province rejected Shi's appeal in the second instance and upheld the ruling of the first instance.

[Typical Significance]

The agreement to determine the jurisdiction court embodies the principle of autonomy of will in the field of civil procedure law. The jurisdiction agreement reached by the parties shall be deemed to be valid in principle as long as it does not violate the mandatory provisions of the law and is the true expression of will of both parties. Asymmetric jurisdiction clause allows one party (usually the creditor) to bring an action in more than one jurisdiction, but stipulates that the other party (usually the debtor) can only bring an action in the courts of a specific jurisdiction. This case affirming the effectiveness of the asymmetric jurisdiction clause reflects the full respect for the party's autonomy, and is in line with the trend and practical needs of international commercial and maritime exchanges. The Hong Kong parties in this case voluntarily chose to file a lawsuit with the Xiamen Maritime Court, which fully reflects their trust in Chinese mainland maritime justice, and highlights the continuous exploration and progress of the maritime trial service of the country in opening up to other countries and actively creating a stable, fair and transparent business environment.

Case 5. Dispute over ship mortgage loan contract, DVB Bank SE v. SPVSAMLIONINC

[Basic Facts]

Since April 30,2020, seven foreign parties including Germany and Sweden and one Hong Kong company had applied to Qingdao Maritime Court for the seizure of Liberian M.V.“Sam lion”. The ship owner failed to provide guarantee within the legal time and finally abandoned the ship. DVB Bank SE filed a lawsuit to Qingdao Maritime Court and applied for auction of the ship. The above 8 parties and 21 foreign crew members of M.V.“Sam lion” applied to Qingdao Maritime Court for maritime creditor's rights registration and filed a lawsuit, involving more than US$20 million.

[Results of the Adjudication]

In the first instance judgment of Qingdao Maritime Court, SPVSAMLIONINC shall repay the principal, interest and default interest owed by DVB Bank SE, totaling US$17,134,455.69; confirm that DVB Bank SE had the mortgage right on M.V.“Sam lion” and the priority to be repaid from the auction sale price of the vessel. After the judgment was rendered, neither party appealed. The remaining cases involving insurance contracts, ship materials and spare parts supply contracts and the confirmation of the right to wages of 21 crew members have been confirmed according to law. The wages of the 21 crew members, which belonged to the ship priority, had the priority to be paid from the auction price of the ship. The ship involved in the case was successfully auctioned at a premium through the judicial auction network.

[Significance]

All parties in this series of cases are foreign or Hong Kong parties, and there is no connection point between the case dispute itself and Chinese Mainland, but all plaintiffs applied to Qingdao Maritime Court for arrest of ships and filed a lawsuit.

The raging COVID-19 pandemic has a major impact on the global shipping industry and crew groups. Arranging crew shift or repatriation has become one of the greatest challenges faced by the shipping industry. The proper handling of serial M.V.“Sam lion” cases was highly praised by the embassies of Ukraine and the Philippines, which fully reflects the recognition and trust of foreign parties in China's maritime justice. The maritime court actively carried out humanitarian assistance to 21 foreign crew members and took reasonable and feasible measures to repatriate the foreign crew members safely and efficiently while preventing and controlling the epidemic, which not only fully guaranteed the legitimate rights and interests of the crew members, but also helped the ship buyer to carry out normal production and operation as soon as possible. The handling of this case reflects China's role as a major power of ships and crew, and provides a “China plan” for properly handling the global problems in seafarer shift or repatriation during the COVID-19 pandemic and availing shipping enterprises return to work and production in an orderly manner.

Case 6. Dispute over ship construction contract, BOA BARGES AS v. Nanjing Yichun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd.

[Basic Facts]

BOA BARGES AS, a Norwegian ship owner, had a dispute with Nanjing Yichun Shipbuilding Co., Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as Yichun Company) over three contracts of Semi-submersible Heavy Deck Cargo Barge Shipbuilding Contract with a total price of nearly US$50 million. The dispute resolution agreed in the contract involved in the case was to apply to the London International Arbitration Court for arbitration and apply British law. Both parties signed Supplementary Agreement on May 16,2020 to change the dispute resolution method to the jurisdiction of Nanjing Maritime Court and apply Chinese law. In June, BOA BARGES AS filed a lawsuit with Nanjing Maritime Court to order Yichun Company to return the advance payment.

[Results of the Adjudication]

Nanjing Maritime Court organized online mediation, which took only 27 days to coordinate the parties to reach a mediation agreement.

[Significance]

China is a large shipbuilding country, while the current dispute resolution method for foreign-related ship construction disputes is generally agreed to be London arbitration and applicable to British law. Upon the dispute, the foreign parties to the ship construction contract in this case agreed to change the dispute resolution method and the applicable law, and took the initiative to sue in the Nanjing Maritime Court and apply the Chinese law, which was not only based on the trust in China's construction of the preferred place of international maritime justice, but also fully recognized the professional judicial ability of Chinese maritime courts. During COVID-19 pandemic, the maritime court optimized the filing and mediation process according to Guidance of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Proper Trial of Civil Cases Involving COVID-19 Pandemic in Accordance with the Law (III), allowing foreign parties to postpone the submission of notarization and certification documents by authorization, and actively using the Internet to handle cases and organize rounds of online consultations. They always equally protect legitimate rights and interests of Chinese and foreign parties, and finally resolve contradictions and disputes efficiently and satisfactorily, so as to truly realize the “non-stop trial execution, fairness and justice forever”.

Case 7. Dispute over ship collision damage liability, Jiang v. Lin

[Basic Facts]

On December 26,2018,“Hualun 67” owned by Jiang collided with the “Zhefengyu 26011” owned by Lin in the waters east of Zhujiajian Island, Zhoushan, Zhejiang Province, and the former one capsized and sank. According to the investigation of Zhoushan Shenjiamen Maritime Department,“Hualun 67” and “Zhefengyu 26011” were respectively principal and secondary responsible party of the incident, for both sides were not equipped with enough qualified crew members. Jiang sued to order Lin to compensate for the loss, while Lin pleaded that he was entitled to the limitation of liability for maritime claims.

[Results of the Adjudication]

In the first instance, Ningbo Maritime Court held that by comprehensively comparing the degree of fault in the collision between the two ships, as well as the causal relationship between the illegal act and the damage consequences,80% of the responsibility shall be borne by “Hualun 67” and 20% by “Zhefengyu 26011”. Only two of the six crew members of “Zhefengyu 26011” held the job certificate of crew, but were not competent. The other four, especially the personnel on duty performing the duties of Captain and chief mate, drove without a license, which seriously endangered navigation safety. As the owner of the ship, Lin failed to fulfill his obligations of ship operation safety management, equip the ship with enough competent crew. In addition, Lin was supposed to foresee the possible dangers and hazards to the crew such as incompetence. All of the above situations constituted “reckless act or omission with knowledge of possible losses”, thus he had no right to enjoy the limitation of liability for maritime claims. In the first instance, Lin was ordered to compensate Jiang for the loss of RMB 1.772 million. Neither party appealed, and Lin had taken the initiative to perform the judgment.

[Significance]

In recent years, some domestic ships suffer problems such as insufficient staffing, incompetent crew and navigation beyond the navigation area, thus are very prone to water traffic accidents. It poses a serious threat to the domestic waterway navigation environment and the safety of people's lives and property. In this case, on the one hand, inland river ship sailing beyond the navigation area without complying with the collision avoidance rules was determined, according to law, as the main cause of the accident, thus “Hualun 67” was ordered to bear the main responsibility; On the other hand, Maritime Law of the People's Republic of China was accurately applied to identify the accident caused by unlicensed driving as losing the limitation of liability for maritime claims, which defines the judgment standards, warns of the risks and responsibilities of illegal navigation, guides the ship owners and operators to cultivate the awareness of safe navigation and strengthen ship safety management. It is of positive significance to curb illegal entry of inland river vessels and crew driving without licenses, further regulate water traffic order and maintain ship navigation safety.

Case 8. Pre-litigation maritime claim preservation case, Fujian Zhongjiang Petrochemical Co., Ltd.v. Liberian owner of “GAS PRODIGY”

[Basic Facts]

On February 10,2020, Fujian Zhongjiang Petrochemical Co., Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as “Zhongjiang Petrochemical Company”) urgently imported 2,400 tons of propylene from some foreign country to produce masks and protective clothing for preventing epidemic. When the Liberian carrier ship “GAS PRODIGY” was unloading at Jiangyin port, Fuqing, cracks appeared at the cargo pump's outlet weld, resulting in propylene leakage. On March 10,2020, Zhongjiang Petrochemical Company applied to Xiamen Maritime Court for pre-litigation seizure of “GAS PRODIGY” and ordered the respondent to provide a guarantee of RMB 12.5882 million.

[Results of the Adjudication]

Upon receiving the application for maritime preservation, Xiamen Maritime Court quickly facilitated the accommodation between Zhongjiang Petrochemical Company and owner of “GAS PRODIGY”. The respondent issued a letter of guarantee to Zhongjiang Petrochemical Company, and Xiamen Maritime Court ruled to allow Zhongjiang Petrochemical Company to withdraw its pre- litigation maritime preservation application.

[Significance]

It's a typical maritime case with foreign factors and maritime preservation characteristics during the epidemic period. Proceeding from the urgency of epidemic prevention and control, the maritime court overcame difficulties, quickly resolved disputes in only 24 hours, smoothly unloaded the protective materials transported by the ship and put them into production, which supplied the domestic supply market of epidemic prevention materials, provided strong judicial support to alleviate the tight supply of protective materials during the epidemic, and practiced judicial services to ensure the epidemic prevention and control. Meanwhile, the maritime court upheld the “no closing” of the judicial service during the epidemic prevention period, gave full play to the “Internet plus trial” to effectively hear maritime claims, mediate during the procedures of the preservation, and settle disputes quickly and properly. It highlights the efficiency and wisdom of China's maritime justice, and fully demonstrates the judicial capacity and good image of China's maritime courts to the international community. It has enhanced the international credibility of maritime trials, and reflects the judicial role of Chinese courts in global epidemic prevention and control as a great power.

Case 9. Dispute over liability for personal injury at sea, Fan and Guo v. Huang, Zhou and Luo

[Basic Facts]

The home port of “Zhuxiang 1746” fishing boat was HKSAR, and the ship owner Zhou a resident of MCSAR. On April 18,2019,“Zhuxiang 1746” fishing boat lost contact while operating in the south of Dawanshan Island, Zhuhai, Guangdong Province. After search and rescue, it was confirmed to sink on April 21,2021, and there was no survival among the crew it bore, including Zhou, Zhou's brother and sister-in-law and five Chinese mainland fishermen. Fan was one of the Chinese mainland fishermen who died in the incident. His close relatives Fan and Guo appealed to the heirs of Zhou, the ship owner, to pay personal damages.

[Results of the Adjudication]

Availed by the cooperation platform with Hong Kong and Macao Migrant Fishermen's Association in Zhuhai, Guangzhou Maritime Court successfully delivered the court summons to three parties in Macao, and selected Macao jurors as members of the collegial panel to mediate together with Hong Kong and Macao Migrant Fishermen's Association in Zhuhai. Finally, the mediation was agreed and a civil mediation letter was issued for confirmation. At present, the defendant has taken the initiative to fulfill all his obligations.

[Significance]

This case is a dispute involving the liability of fishermen in Hong Kong and Macao for personal injury at sea. The maritime court strengthened its litigation service capacity, explored the application of online authorized witness, facilitated delivery and court trial, realized a new mode of intelligent litigation service, improved the litigation efficiency of maritime disputes involving Hong Kong and Macao, and made the parties truly realize the convenience, flexibility and efficiency of the achievements of the construction of intelligent court. It deepened the integration and introduction of trial resources, improved the system of people from Hong Kong and Macao serving as jurors, and facilitated the identification and application of laws in Hong Kong and Macao. It promoted the efficient use of social resources, gave full play to the advantages of Macao Migrant Fishermen's Association in Zhuhai in extensive contact with Hong Kong and Macao migrant fishermen, timely and effectively resolved contradictions through joint mediation and promote the voluntary performance of the parties, equally protected the legitimate rights and interests of the parties in Chinese mainland and Macao, and achieved good results. The successful handling of this case has provided new ideas, new ways and new approaches to promote the connection of legal rules and mechanism between Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao, and enhance the in-depth cooperation of the rule of law among the three places, which plays a positive role in constructing the rule of law in the Guangdong-Hong Kong- Macao Greater Bay Area.

Case 10. Ship construction commission contract dispute. Winship Maritime Inc.v. China Shipping Industry Co., Ltd.and Yangzhou COSCO Shipping Heavy Industry Co., Ltd.

[Basic Facts]

On June 2,2015, China Shipping Industry Co., Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as China Shipping) and Yangzhou COSCO Shipping Heavy Industry Co.,Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as Yangzhou COSCO) signed Shipbuilding Contract with TTI, the outsider of the case, which agreed that China Shipping and Yangzhou COSCO would build three ships for TTI. On July 20,2015, China Shipping, Yangzhou COSCO and Winship Maritime Inc.(hereinafter referred to as Winship) signed Commission Agreement for the aforementioned shipbuilding contract, which agreed that the agreement would be bound by and interpreted in accordance with British law. Afterwards, TTI entered bankruptcy reorganization in U.S.court, and sold its rights and obligations under Shipbuilding Contract to a new buyer. China Shipping and Yangzhou COSCO received full payment from the new buyer. Winship filed a lawsuit with the Shanghai Maritime Court to order China Shipping and Yangzhou COSCO to pay commission and interest.

[Results of the Adjudication]

The Shanghai Maritime Court held in the first instance that Commission Agreement agreed to apply British law, under which the broker's commission shall be subject to the conditions agreed in the Commission Agreement. After the transfer of Shipbuilding Contract involved in the case, the conditions for Winship to obtain the commission were not met. China Shipping and Yangzhou COSCO were not at fault and did not have to bear the liability for damages. Therefore, it was decided to reject the litigation claim of Winship. After the judgment was rendered, neither party appealed.

[Significance]

This case is a dispute over shipbuilding commission contract tried by British law. The trial of the case provides a practical sample for the identification and application of foreign case law in foreign-related commercial and maritime trials. As explained by the court during the trial, the case adopted the method where the parties shall provide the methods of exhaustive retrieval and joint confirmation of relevant cases and statements of British law, confine dozens of relevant cases that may need to be applied to this case, and then the maritime court shall summarize the judgment rules that can be used to solve the disputes in this case under British law according to hierarchy and time effect of the cases and the matching degree with this case. These rules involve the principles of contract interpretation, freedom of contracting, good faith and the specific treatment of commission contract under British law (common law), and accurately respond to the reasonable expectations of the parties for dispute resolution when choosing the application of law. After the first instance judgment was made, both parties did not appeal. As a useful exploration to drive China to become the preferred place for international maritime dispute resolution, it realizes the good effect of accurately applying foreign precedents to settle disputes, and highlighting China's maritime judicial ability.

(Source: The Supreme People's Court)