Maritime Law In Ocean Pearl V. Triton Case

860 Words4 Pages
However, a Chinese Jurisdiction principle that seems progressive and is similar to the US is when Maritime Courts allow parties to reject jurisdiction where for appropriate reasoning in tort disputes. In Ocean Pearl v. Triton Case (2015) Ocean Pearl alleged that HNA & Triton, the ship-owner and ship- manager respectively, failed to fulfill their obligations and should be held responsible for the resulting property damage. HNA disputed the Shanghai Maritime Court’ jurisdiction because HNA was domiciled near the Tianjin Maritime Court. The Court declared “Pursuant to Chinese laws, this dispute is under the jurisdiction of the Maritime Court in the place where the tort occurs, or where the defendant is domiciled or in other places which have a connection with the dispute.” The evidence Ocean Pearl presented did not prove that Shanghai had an actual connection. Because HNA objected to the jurisdiction of the court, the Court agreed and held the Tianjin Maritime Court had jurisdiction. This case illustrates the importance of understanding where the issue at hand occurs and the courts important role in coming to a correct conclusion. The Reforms reinforce Maritime Courts performing an analysis of the evidence on record to determine appropriate jurisdiction,
Interestingly enough, in regards to damages occurring in ship collisions, Chinese Maritime Law share similarities to United States Maritime law via determining liability. According to paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 169 of the

More about Maritime Law In Ocean Pearl V. Triton Case

Open Document