Plaintiff			:	Guangzhou Ocean Shipping Company 

Domicile		:	412, Huan Shi Dong Road, Guangzhou

Legal Rep.		:	Xu Huixing, General Manager

Agent ad litem	:	Zhou Xueyin and Lin Yaoqiang of Guangzhou Ocean Shipping 						Company


Defendant		:	PALLISTER GROUP LIMITED

Domicile		:	53RD Street, Urbanization Obarrio Torre Swiss Bank, 16th Floor, 					Panama, Republic of Panama


Defendant		:	Orient Princess Limited

Domicile		:	2304-2305, 23/F Sino Plaza, 255-257 Gloucester Road, 							Causeway Bay, Hong Kong


Defendant		:	Hua Qing Times International (Hong Kong) Investment Ltd.

Domicile		:	A 62/F, Bank of China Tower, 1 Garden Road, Central,

					Hong Kong


Defendant		:	Hua Qing Times Investment Group Ltd.

Domicile		:	12/F, Fuhua Mansion, 8 Chaoyangmen Beidajie Dongcheng 						District, Beijing


Defendant		:	Shanghai Hua Qing Venture Investment Ltd.

Domicile		:	18/F, West Tower, Hi-Tech King World No.668

					Beijing Road (E),Shanghai


The case of dispute over crew employment contact between the Plaintiff Guangzhou Ocean Shipping Company (?°COSCO Guangzhou?±), the Defendant PALLISTER GROUP LIMITED (?°PALLISTER?±), the Defendant Orient Princess Limited (?°OPL?±), the Defendant Hua Qing Times International (Hong Kong) Investment Ltd. (?°Hua Qing Hong Kong?±), the Defendant Hua Qing Times Investment Group Ltd. (?°Hua Qing Beijing?±) and the Defendant Shanghai Hua Qing Venture Investment Ltd. (?°Hua Qing Shanghai?±) was accepted by this Court on May 27, 2002. The Judge Wu Zili was assigned as the sole judge to try the case. Evidence discovery was made on August 13 and public hearing was held at the same day. Zhou Xueyin and Lin Yaoqiang, agents ad litem for the Plaintiff attended the court hearing. the Defendant PALLISTER, the Defendant OPL, the Defendant Hua Qing Hong Kong, the Defendant Hua Qing Beijing and the Defendant Hua Qing Shanghai did not appear before the court although the writs were served through public notice. Now the trial of case has been concluded. 

It was alleged by the Plaintiff COSCO Guangzhou that since 1990??s, the Plaintiff constantly dispatched crews to serve onboard the M.V. Orient Princess owned by PALLISTER and operated by OPL in the name of shipowner. At the end of 1990??s, due to poor performance, OPL owed crew wage and relevant remunerations from time to time. On July 18, 2000, the Plaintiff and OPL signed a Minute of Meeting to confirm that up to the date of signing, OPL owed HKD6,301,815 to the crew dispatched by COSCO Guangzhou. After the Minute of Meeting was signed, OPL only paid HKD503,090 (equivalent to RMB562,958) on July 21, 2000 while the balance remained unpaid. On November 8, 2000, COSCO Guangzhou and Hua Qing Beijing signed an Payment Agreement, under which Hua Qing Beijing agreed to pay the crew wages and remunerations owed by OPL in amount of HKD5,911,957. According to this Agreement, on November 13, 2000, Hua Qing Beijing paid HKD500,000 (equivalent to RMB530,700). On April 9, 2001, Hua Yun Da Group Limited (?°Hua Yun Da?±) paid HKD500,000 on behalf of OPL. On July 17, 2001, Hua Qing Shanghai, the subsidiary of Hua Qing Beijing, paid to the Plaintiff RMB2,000,000. On August 14, 2001, Hua Qing Beijing signed another Payment Agreement with the Plaintiff, confirming that up to the date of signing, OPL still owed HKD5,043,414 to the Plaintiff and Hua Qing Beijing again promised to assume liability for payment of crew wages and remuneration in arrears. On February 10, 2002, Hua Yun Da paid the crew wages and remunerations for February of that year on behalf of OPL. On March 4, 2002, Hua Qing Hong Kong and the Plaintiff reached a Payment Agreement, under which the former admitted that up to the date of signing, OPL owed the Plaintiff crew wages and remuneration in total amount of HKD6,347,786 and agreed to pay the debt, on joint and several basis, in three installments. The time for payment of the two installments expired. But the five Defendants did not fulfill their obligation to repay the debt despite the Plaintiff??s repeated urging. Furthermore, the Defendants breached the Crew Employment agreed on Sept. 20, 2001 between the Plaintiff and OPL, causing the Plaintiff to advance an additional amount of USD8,439.90 for bunkers, RMB6,880 for water supply and RMB15,400 for crew change. The total amount of advancement was RMB92,132. Although the 51 crewmembers onboard M.V. Orient Princess applied to have the ship arrested to satisfy the claim for wages and filed suit against the five Defendants for the crew wages and remunerations for the period between March 2001 and March 2002, the five Defendant had not fulfilled their obligation to pay the wages and remuneration or provided security therefor. In addition, the Plaintiff advanced great amount of expenses and costs during the M.V. Orient Princess was under arrest. In order to prevent the interest of the crew from being further impaired by the lack of sincerity of the five Defendants to perform the employment contract, the Plaintiff claimed for the crew wages, remunerations and advanced sums incurred before March 2001 and after March 2002 as well as the relevant interests. The Plaintiff requested the court (1) to order the five Defendant to pay, on joint and several basis, the crew wages and other remunerations before March 2001 and after March 2002 in total amount of HKD3,880,730 (calculated up to May 9, 2002), (2) to order the five Defendants to pay, on joint and several basis, various sums advanced by the Plaintiff in amount of RMB92,132, (3) to order the five Defendants to pay the interests on the above crew wages, remunerations and advanced sums (calculated from the date the sums should have been paid till the date of actual payment at the interest rate published by Bank of China for the corresponding period), (4) to order that the above sums to be satisfied from the auction proceeds of the M.V. Orient Princess on a priority basis, (5) to order the five Defendants to compensate the Plaintiff RMB125,000 which was advanced for arresting and auctioning the ship, (6) to order the five Defendants to compensate the Plaintiff RMB426,739.59 which was incurred by the Plaintiff for safekeeping the ship during the period of arrest and (7) to order the five Defendants to bear all the court fees.


The Plaintiff COSCO Guangzhou presented the following evidential documents during the period for adducing evidence:


(1)	Minute of Meeting signed by COSCO Guangzhou and OPL on July 18, 2000;

(2)	Payment Agreement signed by Hua Qing Beijing and COSCO Guangzhou on September 9, 2000;

(3)	Payment Agreement signed between Hua Qing Beijing and COSCO Guangzhou on August 14, 2001;

(4)	Payment Agreement signed between Hua Qing Hong Kong and COSCO Guangzhou on March 4, 2002;

(5)	Letter from Hua Qing to COSCO Guangzhou on March 8, 2002;

(6)	Crew Employment Agreements dated April 24, 1999 and September 20, 2001 respectively between COSCO Guangzhou and OPL;

(7)	Crew Wage List and Payment Scheme sent by OPL to the manager stationed onboard the M.V. Orient Princes on January 22, 2002;

(8)	Table of Crew Wages and Costs for the period between April 9, 2002 and May 9, 2002;

(9)	Table of Crew Wages and Costs for the period between April 1, 2002 and April 9, 2002;

(10)	Incoming remittance slip for RMB562,958 received by the Plaintiff on July 21, 2000 for the crew wages paid by OPL;

(11)	Incoming remittance slip for RMB530,700 received by the Plaintiff on November 13, 2000 for the crew wages paid by Hua Qing Beijing;

(12)	Incoming remittance slip for HKD500,000 received by the Plaintiff on April 9, 2001 for the crew wages paid by Hua Yun Da;

(13)	Incoming remittance slip for RMB2,000,000 received by the Plaintiff on July 17, 2001 for the crew wages paid by Hua Qing Shanghai;

(14)	Incoming remittance slip for HKD285,635 received by the Plaintiff on February 10, 2002 for the crew wages paid by Hua Yun Da;

(15)	Receipt issued by Master of the M.V. Orient Princess on February 1, 2002 for RMB50,000 as the provisions advanced by the Plaintiff;

(16)	Invoice for bunkers in amount of USD6,125 advanced by the Plaintiff on March 13, 2002 for the M.V. Orient Princess;

(17)	Fax dated April 3, 2002 from the Master of the M.V. Orient Princess confirming that the Plaintiff had advanced the money for provisions, supply of fresh water, bunkers and lubricants;

(18)	Invoice for RMB6,880 advanced by the Plaintiff on April 3, 2002 for taking in fresh water for the M.V. Orient Princess;

(19)	Incoming Remittance Slip for RMB12,200 advanced by the Plaintiff on April 4, 2002 for crew change onboard the M.V. Orient Princess;

(20)	Invoice for USD7,550 advanced by the Plaintiff on April 17, 2002 for supply of bunkers for the M.V. Orient Princess;

(21)	Incoming Remittance Slip for RMB3,200 advanced by the Plaintiff on April 19 for crew change onboard the M.V. Orient Princess;

(22)	Incoming Remittance Slip for RMB6,880 advanced by the Plaintiff on April 22, 2002 for supply of fresh water for the M.V. Orient Princess;

(23)	Invoice for USD2,314.80 advanced by the Plaintiff on May 4, 2002 for supply of bunkers for the M.V. Orient Princess;

(24)	Invoice for RMB6,640 advanced by the Plaintiff on May 9, 2002 for supply of fresh water for the M.V. Orient Princess;

(25)	Invoice for USD12,400 advanced by the Plaintiff on May 16, 2002 for supply of bunkers for the M.V. Orient Princess;

(26)	Invoice for RMB39,270 advanced by the Plaintiff on May 23, 2002 for repairing the M.V. Orient Princess;

(27)	Invoice for USD12,400 advanced by the Plaintiff on June 24, 2002 for supply of bunkers for the M.V. Orient Princess;

(28)	Invoice for RMB750 advanced by the Plaintiff on June 30, 2002 for traffic costs for the crew of the M.V. Orient Princess;

(29)	Invoice for RMB916 advanced by the Plaintiff on August 2, 2002 for supply of materials for the M.V. Orient Princess;

(30)	Settlement for Provisions for the period between April 9, 2002 and June 30, 2002 for the M.V. Orient Princess;

(31)	Certificate of Registry for the M.V. Orient Princess;

(32)	(Copy of ) Business License of the Plaintiff.


The Defendant PALLISTER, OPL, Hua Qing Hong Kong, Hua Qing Beijing and Hua Qing Beijing did not make defence. Nor have they provided any evidence.


The Judge deemed the default of the five Defendants from attending the trial as waiver of their right to provide or examine evidence and waiver of the right to make defence. The evidential documents provided by the Plaintiff could cross-verify each other and were admitted as evidences.


On basis of the evidence provided by the Plaintiff, the following facts were ascertained:


I.	Facts in respect of the signing of crew employment agreements and payment agreements between the Plaintiff and the Defendants


On April 24, 1999, the Plaintiff and OPL signed a Crew Employment Agreement under which it was agreed that OPL according to the actual needs employed 48 crewmembers of the Plaintiff to work onboard the M.V. Orient Princess owned by OPL. The period of employment started from the crew??s departure from the territory of China (or from the date of boarding in case the crewmembers boarded the M.V. Orient Princess in any domestic port) till the date of return to Hong Kong or departing the M.V. Orient Princess in domestic port). OPL should pay the wages (minus the living allowance advanced to the crew by OPL on behalf of the Plaintiff ) to the Plaintiff in HK currency on quarterly basis at the wage standard agreed by the Plaintiff and OPL according to the actual employed number of crewmembers within 10 days upon elapse of each quarter. In case of default, interests should be payable at the interest rate of Bank of China for such quarter according to actual days of default. In addition, the Plaintiff would also reserve the right to take measures such as withdrawing the crewmembers from the M.V. Orient Princess any time. The employment period for each crewmember should be calculated from the date of boarding and last for 12 months, reasonable extension or shortening allowable, in any way more than 14 months in usual case. In case the crewmember shall serve longer than the contractual period, OPAL should give reward (HKD400 for each month for each senior crewmember and HKD350 for each ordinary crewmember) for the service longer than the contractual period. In case the service period shall be longer than 14 months, the reward should be doubled from the 15th month. The rewards should be given to the crewmembers themselves. The living allowance should be paid to the crewmembers each mouth by OPL on behalf of the Plaintiff at the standard fixed by the Plaintiff. This sum should be deducted from the sums to be paid by OPL to the Plaintiff. OPL should be responsible for the regular overtime of the crewmembers. In case the crewmembers must leave the ship when the crewmembers have fulfilled the contract or there is earlier crew change at suitable port, or the shipowner sells the ship, OPL should give an additional reward to the crewmembers at 20% of the living allowance they actually had onboard the ship. The provisions for the crewmembers should be provided by OPL at the following standards: HKD1,320/month for senior crewmember, HKD1,032/month for ordinary crewmember. The crew excellent service reward should be paid by OPL. OPL also agreed to pay to the Plaintiff HKD1,800/person for each contract according to the number of crewmembers onboard as domestic traveling and boarding expenses (?°traveling expenses?±). The Agreement should remain valid from May 1, 1999 to April 30, 2000. Upon expiration, the Agreement should continue to take effect, if no new agreement is signed or the validity period of the original Agreement is not extended, as long as there are crewmembers onboard the ship.


On July 18, 2000, the Plaintiff and OPL signed a Minute of the Meeting under which it was jointly confirmed that up to June 30, 2000, OPL owed crew hire in amount of HKD5,543,090 to the crewmembers dispatched by the Plaintiff, that OPL should pay HKD503,090 on July 18, 2000 and that the balance should be paid before May 31, 2001 from August 2000 in ten installments.


On November 9, 2000, the Plaintiff and Hua Qing Beijing signed a Payment Agreement, under which Hua Qing Beijing recognized the agreements in the Minute of Meeting concluded on July 18, 2000 between the Plaintiff and OPL and confirmed that the eleven installments of monies under the Minute of Meeting remained unpaid totaling HKD5,655,635, and confirmed that up to October 31, 2000, the newly incurred crew hire totaled HKD616,322. Hua Qing Beijing agreed to pay HKD500,000 to the Plaintiff on November 9, 2000 and another HKD500,000 at the end of November 2000. Hua Qing Beijing confirmed to be responsible for coordinating of the payment and affirmed that it had the financial ability to help OPL pay the crew hire in arrears. From January 1, 2001, the wages should be paid directly to the Master in each month for the crew of the Plaintiff employed by OPL.


On August 14, 2001, the Plaintiff signed another Payment Agreement with Hua Qing Beijing, under which it was jointly confirmed that up to the end of December 2000, OPL owed RMB3,666,088 to the Plaintiff for crew hire; Hua Qing Beijing agreed to pay RMB2,000,000 by August 24, 2002, and RMB1,666,088 by September 15, 2001. From January to July 2001, the total wages and service charges unpaid by OPL totaled HKD1,377,326.


On September 20, 2001, the Plaintiff and OPL signed an agreement to continue the Crew Employment Agreement under which it was agreed that OPL according to the actual needs employed crewmembers of the Plaintiff to work onboard the M.V. Orient Princess owned by OPL. OPL should pay the wages to the Master in HK currency on month basis at the wage standard agreed by the Plaintiff and OPL according to the actual number of crewmembers within 10 days upon elapse of each month. The wages received by the Master should be disposed according to COSCO Guangzhou??s internal rules. In case of default, interests should be payable at the interest rate of Bank of China for such month according to actual days of default. In addition, the Plaintiff would also reserve the right to take measures such as withdrawing the crewmembers from the M.V. Orient Princess any time. The employment period for each crewmember should be calculated from the date of boarding and last for 12 months, reasonable extension or shortening allowable, but in any way not more than 14 months in usual case. In case the crewmember shall serve longer than the contractual period, OPAL should give reward (HKD400 for each month for each senior crewmember and HKD350 for each ordinary crewmember) for the service longer than the contractual period. In case the service period shall be longer than 14 months, the reward should be doubled from the 15th month. The rewards should be given to the crewmembers themselves. The wage onboard (included in the base wage to be paid by OPL to the crewmembers of the Plaintiff) should be paid to the crewmembers each moth by OPL on behalf of the Plaintiff at the standard fixed by the Plaintiff. In case the crewmembers must leave the ship when the crewmembers have fulfilled the contract or as agreed by both sides, there is earlier crew change at suitable port, or the shipowner sells the ship, OPL should pay the wage to the crewmembers according to their respective actual working time onboard. The provisions for the crewmembers should be provided by OPL at the following standards: HKD1,320/month for senior crewmember, HKD1,032/month for ordinary crewmember. The crew excellent service reward should e paid by OPL. OPL also agreed to pay to the Plaintiff HKD1,800/person for each contract according to the number of crewmembers onboard as traveling expenses. The Agreement should remain valid from September 20, 2001 to September 20, 2002. 


On March 4, 2002, Hua Qing Hong Kong and the Plaintiff signed a Payment Agreement under which it was jointly confirmed that up to January 31, 2002, OPL owed COSCO Guangzhou crew wages and management fee in amount of HKD6,347,786. Hua Qing Hong Kong undertook to bear joint and several liability for payment. Hua Qing Hong Kong promised to pay to the Plaintiff HKD1,100,000 by March 31, 2002 to settle the crew wages for February and March 2002 and the balance to settle in part the crew wages for the year 2001. Hua Qing Hong Kong should pay HKD350,000 by the end of April 2002 and the balance to be paid in installments.


On March 8, 2002, Hua Qing Hong Kong sent a fax to the Plaintiff, informing that it would pay HKD1,100,000 by the end of March 2002 and pay another HKD350,000 by the end of April 2002. Hua Qing Hong Kong confirmed that the wages and advanced sums owed to the Plaintiff up to December 2000 totaled HKD3,454,663 (equivalent to RMB3,666,088), that from January to February 2001 was HKD40,691 and that the total amount in arrears was HKD3,495,354.


II.	Facts in respect of payment of crew wages and other remunerations by  the Defendants


On July 21, 2000, OPL through Beijing Sai Ge Na Trade Development Ltd. paid RMB562,958 to the Plaintiff. On November 13, 2000, Hua Qing Beijing paid RMB530,700 to the Plaintiff. On April 9, 2001, OPL through Hua Yun Da paid HKD500,000 to the Plaintiff. On July 17, 2000, Hua Qing Shanghai paid RMB2,000,000 to the Plaintiff. On February 10, 2002, OPL through Hua Yun Da paid HKD285,635 to the Plaintiff. On May 30, 2002, OPL paid RMB55,000 to the Plaintiff and Hua Qing Hong Kong paid RMB45,000 to the Plaintiff, totaling RMB100,000, equivalent to HKD94,304.


III.	Facts in respect of application by the 51 crewmembers including the Master Zhang Qixiang to arrest and auction the M.V. Orient Princess and the Plaintiff??s application for registration of claims


On April 8, 2002, the 51 crewmembers including the Master Zhang Qixiang filed application with this Court for maritime claim preservation, requesting to arrest the M.V. Orient Princess owned by PALLISTER. This Court made a ruling at the same day to arrest the M.V. Orient Princess at Huangpu port, Guangzhou. On July 16, 2002, the 51 crewmembers filed application with this Court for auctioning the M.V. Orient Princess due to PALLISTER??s failure to provide security within the time limit fixed by this Court in the ruling. At the same day, the application was approved by this Court to auction the M.V. Orient Princess. On August 29, 2002, the M.V. Orient Princess was sold by public auction by this Court. The Plaintiff filed an application with this Court for registration of claims in this case during the period of public notice. This Court made a ruling on September 16, 2002 to approve the application for claim registration. The amount of RMB513,477.89 advanced by the Plaintiff during the period of arresting and auctioning the M.V. Orient Princess as monies for provisions, bunkers, water supply and repair had been dealt with by this Court in a separate case and paid in advance from the auction proceeds of the M.V. Orient Princess.


IV.	Facts in respect of advanced payment of various expenses and costs by the Plaintiff for the M.V. Orient Princess before arrest


On February 1, 2002, the Plaintiff advanced RMB50,000 for provisions for the M.V. Orient Princess, for which the Master and Steward issued a receipt. On March 13, 2002, the Plaintiff advanced USD6,125 for supply of bunkers for the M.V. Orient Princess. On March 27, 2002, a sum of RMB9,000 was borrowed from the Plaintiff for provisions for the M.V. Orient Princess. On April 3, 2002, the Plaintiff advanced RMB6,880 for supply of fresh water for the M.V. Orient Princess. On April 4, 2002, the Plaintiff advanced RMB12,200 for crew change for the M.V. Orient Princess. On May 4, 2002, the Plaintiff advanced USD2,314.8 for supply on March 12 of lubricants for the M.V. Orient Princess. The total amounts advanced were RMB78,080 and USD8,439.8.


V.	Other Facts


1.	The owner of the M.V. Orient Princess was the Defendant PALLISTER and the flag state was Republic of Panama.


2.	According to the list of crew wages provided by the M.V. Orient Princess, the amount of wages and provisions for the period between April 1 and April 8 2002 for the 51 crewmembers was HKD93,911.2. On April 20, 2002, eighteen crewmembers left the ship and the amount of wages and provisions for the eighteen crewmembers for the period between April 9 and April 20, 2002 was HKD49,003. On April 26, 2002, another thirteen crewmembers left the ship and the amount of wages and provisions for the thirteen crewmembers for the period between April 9 and April 26, 2002 was HKD38,493. On September 11, 2002, another eighteen crewmembers left the ship and the amount of wages and provisions for the eighteen crewmembers for the period between April 9 and September 11, 2002 was HKD702,590. The total amount of wages and provisions for the period between April 1 and September 11, 2002 was HKD883,997.2. The Plaintiff had advanced to the crewmembers the above wages and provisions.


3.	The average loan rate for Hong Kong dollar of the People??s Bank of China for the year 2001 was 5.7769% and 3.75% for the year 2002. The average loan rate for Renminbi for the year 2002 was 5.31%. 


4.	On September 10, 2002, the Plaintiff filed an application with this Court for preservation of the properties of Hua Qing Beijing. On September 19, 2002, this Court approved the Plaintiff??s application, ruling to freeze the amount of HKD5,137,520 and RMB42,160 deposited in the bank account 068571-56 with Ping Gu Branch of Industry and Commerce Bank of China, or in the bank account 49524928932 with Business Department of Industry and Commerce Bank of China Head Office or in the bank account 2610097459 with Beijing Qianmen Branch of Construction Bank of China. Through investigation by this Court, it was found that no sum was available in the above bank accounts for freezing. This Court did not freeze the above bank accounts with the agreement of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff paid RMB28,216 for property preservation fee and RMB20,000 for enforcement fee.


5.	During the proceedings, the Plaintiff added the claims for application fee for arresting and auctioning the ship in amount of RMB125,000 and for the advanced expenses for safekeeping the ship during the period of arrest in amount of RMB426,739.59. But the Plaintiff did not prepay the court fees for the additional two claims.


The Judge was of the opinion that this was a case of dispute over crew employment contract. The Plaintiff and the Defendants did not reach agreement on the applicable law to the substantive dispute. Since the place of arrest and auction was in China, the Plaintiff was domiciled in China and one of the places of performing the crew employment contract was in China, in accordance with the principle of closest connection, the law of People??s Republic of China shall be the applicable law to the substantive dispute in this case. As this Court was the court having accepted the application for auctioning the ship involved in this case, in accordance with Article 272 of the Maritime Code of the People??s Republic of China, the law of the People??s Republic of China shall also be applied to disputes over the maritime lien to be exercised by the Plaintiff.


The Plaintiff, as per the Crew Employment Agreement signed with OPL, dispatched crewmembers to work onboard the M.V. Orient Princess operated by OPL and had fulfilled its obligations under the Crew Employment Agreement. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was entitled to ask OPL to pay the crew wages and remunerations in accordance with the Agreement. OPL defaulted in paying part of crew wages and other remunerations, constituting a breach of the contract. It was well justified for the Plaintiff to ask OPL to pay the crew wages and other remunerations before March 2001 and after March 2002. According to the ascertained findings of facts, up to March 5, 2002, the amount of wages and remunerations owed by OPL to the Plaintiff for the period before March 2001 was HKD3,495,354 and the interests on this sum up to May 29, 2002 was HKD30,883.61. After deduction of the HKD94,304 paid to the Plaintiff on May 30, 2002, up to May 30, 2002, the amount of wages and other remunerations owed by OPL to the Plaintiff for the period before March 2001 was HKD3,431,933.61. Therefore, the amount due from OPL to the Plaintiff for the crew wages and remunerations for the period before March 2001 was HKD3,431,933.61 and the amount due from OPL to the Plaintiff for the crew wages and remunerations for the period between April 1 and September 11, 2002 was HKD883,997.2, totaling HKD4,315,930.81. Before the arrest of the M.V. Orient Princess, the Plaintiff had advanced expenses necessary for operation of the M.V. Orient Princess. OPL should reimburse the Plaintiff for such advancements. The Plaintiff claimed RMB92,132 for the advancements. The claim was well grounded and did not exceed the actual expenses of RMB78,080 and USD8,439.8. Such a claim should be supported. The Plaintiff??s claim for the interest on the defaulted crew wages at the one-year loan rate in HK Dollar of Bank of China was justified and should be supported. The advancements were not attributed to the Crew Employment Agreement and the interests on the advancements should be subject to the average one-year loan rate for Renminbi of the People??s Bank of China. As calculated, up to September 11, 2002, the interests payable by OPL to the Plaintiff on the above crew wages and remunerations was HKD43,745.33 and the interests payable on the RMB92,132 of advancements was RMB2,050.71. The application fee, enforcement fee and expenses incurred during the period of arrest and auction were allotted by this Court in a separate case. The Plaintiff??s claim for application fee of RMB125,000 for arresting and auctioning the ship and expenses of RMB426,739.59 for safekeeping the ship as well as other expenses was not dealt with.


As both Hua Qing Hong Kong and Hua Qing Beijing agreed in the Payment Agreements to be responsible for payment of the crew wages and remunerations of the crewmembers working onboard the M.V. Orient Princess, the Plaintiff??s request to hold Hua Qing Hong Kong and Hua Qing Beijing jointly and severally liable for payment of the claimed crew wages, other remunerations and advancements should be supported.


PALLISTER did not enter into the crew employment agreement with the Plaintiff. Nor had it promised to undertake the payment of the crew wages and remunerations for the crewmembers working onboard the M.V. Orient Princess. Therefore, the Plaintiff??s request to hold PALLISTER jointly and severally directly liable for its claimed crew wages and remunerations and advancements were not well grounded and should not be supported. However, since the crewmembers dispatched by the Plaintiff had worked onboard the M.V. Orient Princess owned by PALLISTER, in accordance with Article 22, Para. 1, (1) of the Maritime Code of the People??s Republic of China, the Plaintiff??s claim for crew wages and remunerations for the period between April 1 and September 9, 2002 totaling HKD883,997.2 and the interests thereon was of nature of maritime lien. Since the M.V. Orient Princess had been auctioned by the court, the Plaintiff should be entitled to have its claim in this connection satisfied in priority from the auction proceeds of the M.V. Orient Princess according to the sequences provided by law. As to the Plaintiff??s claim for the crew wages and other remunerations for the period before February 2001 in amount of HKD3,431,933.61 should have also been classified as maritime lien, as such maritime lien had been extinguished since one year had elapsed since the occurrence of such maritime claim, such claim did not belong to maritime lien. The various expenses advanced by the Plaintiff for the M.V. Orient Princess before arrest did not belong to the maritime claims with nature of maritime lien as per the Maritime Code of the People??s Republic of China. The Plaintiff??s allegation that the claim for such expenses belong to maritime lien was not grounded and should not be supported.


Hua Qing Shanghai paid RMB2,000,000 to the Plaintiff on July 17, 2001 as crew wages. Such payment should be deemed to have been made on behalf of OPL. The Plaintiff??s allegation in reliance upon this that Hua Qing Shanghai should also bear joint and several liability for the crew wages and remunerations this was not well grounded and should not be supported.


In accordance with Para. 1 of Article 106, Article 111, Para. 2 of Article 145 and Para. 1 of Article 22 of the Maritime Code of the People??s Republic of China, the judgment is handed down as follows:


1.	The Defendant OPL should pay to the Plaintiff COSCO Guangzhou the wages and remunerations for the period before February 2001 in amount of HKD3,431,933.61 and the crew wages and remunerations for the period between April 1 and September 11, 2002 in amount of HKD883,997.2, totaling HKD4,315,930.81 and the interests thereon (the interests being HKD43,745.33 up to September 11, 2002 and other interests to be calculated at the rate of the People??s Bank of China for one-year loan in HK Dollar from September 12, 2002 to the date of payment as fixed by the judgment).


2.	The Defendant OPL should pay to the Plaintiff COSCO Guangzhou the expenses advanced by the Plaintiff in amount of RMB92,132 and the interests thereon (the interests being RMB2,050.71 up to September 11, 2002 and other interests to be calculated at the rate of the People??s Bank of China for one-year loan in Renminbi from September 12, 2002 to the date of payment as fixed by the judgment).


3.	The Plaintiff COSCO Guangzhou??s claim for the crew wages and other remunerations in amount of HKD883,997.2 for the period between April 1 and September 11, 2002 and the interests thereon is of the nature of maritime lien and should be satisfied from the auction proceeds of the M.V. Orient Princess according to the sequence provided by law.


4.	The Defendants Hua Qing Hong Kong and Hua Qing Beijing should be jointly and severally liable for the debts of the Defendant OPl under the above items 1 and 2. 


5.	The Plaintiff??s other claims against the Defendant OPL should be dismissed.


6.	The Plaintiff??s claim against the Defendant PALLISTER to hold the latter jointly and severally liable for the debts of OPL should be dismissed.


7.	The Plaintiff??s claim against the Defendant Hua Qing Shanghai should be dismissed.


The court fee for the case in amount of RMB41,660 should be jointly undertaken by the Defendants OPL, Hua Qing Hong Kong and Hua Qing Beijing. The court fees advanced by the Plaintiff would not be refunded separately and the Defendants OPL, Hua Qing Hong Kong and Hua Qing Beijing should directly pay the court fee to the Plaintiff. The property preservation fee in amount of RMB28,216 and enforcement fee in amount of RMB20,000 should be borne by the Defendant Hua Qing Beijing. The property preservation fee and enforcement fee advanced by the Plaintiff would not be refunded separately. The Defendant Hua Qing Beijing should directly pay the property preservation fee and enforcement fee to the Plaintiff.


The above monetary obligations should be fulfilled within 10 days from the date this judgment takes effect.  


If not satisfied with this judgment, the Plaintiff COSCO Guangzhou, the Defendants OPL, Hua Qing Beijing and Hua Qing Hong Kong can within 15 days upon service of this judgment, the Defendant PALLISTER can within 30 days upon service of this judgment, make appeal to the Higher People??s Court of Guangdong Province by filing with this Court the Statement of Appeal in the number of the counterpart parties.


Judge			:	Wu Zili


December 6, 2002

Judge Assistant	:	Pan Guanchong


Clerk			:	Yang Qian