Guangzhou Maritime Court


Civil Judgement


(2001)GHFCZ No.215


Plaintiff: China Telecom Corporation 

Address: No.33, Er Long Road, Xicheng District, Beijing

Legal Rep.: Zhou Deqiang, general manager

Agent ad Litem: Li Hongzhi, Zhang Wei, lawyers of Beijing China Base Law Firm


Defendant:  Shanghai Xin Hai Tian Shipping Co. Ltd.

Address: 11/F, Double Dragon Building, No.974, Wai Ma Road, Shanghai

Legal Rep.: Fang Weijian, chairman of the board of directors

Agent ad Litem: Lin Qiming, deputy general manager of Shanghai Xin Hai Tian Shipping Co. Ltd.

Agent ad Litem: Cai Cunqiang, lawyer of Shanghai Hua Li Law Firm


With respect to the case of dispute between the Plaintiff China Telecom Corporation and the Defendant Shanghai Xin Hai Tian Shipping Co. Ltd. over damage to underwater facilities due to ship??s contact , this court accepted the case on September 28, 2001 and constituted the collegiate bench according to law. The court arranged pre-trial exchange of evidences on January 28, January 29, June 17, 2002 respectively, and held open court hearings on June 18 and July 30 respectively. Li Hongji and Zhang Wei, the agents ad litem of the Plaintiff China Telecom Corporation, Cai Cunqiang and Lin Qiming, the agents ad litem of the Defendant Shanghai Xin Hai Tian Shipping Co. Ltd., attended the court hearing. Now the case has been finalized. 


The Plaintiff China Telecom claimed that: on September 20, 2001, M/V ?°An Da Hai?± owned by the Defendant, due to wrongful choice of an anchorage and failure in applying good seamanship to avoid the typhoon and prevent anchor dragging, hooked and broke the Sino-US seabed optic cable and the Asia-Europe seabed optic cable at a spot with about 20 kilometers from the Shantou landing station of the cables, causing interruption of the communication through the optic cable. After the seabed optic cables were broken, the Plaintiff input a large volume of manpower and material resources to repair them. The accident also greatly affected the life expectancy and communication quality of the optic cables. The Defendant has constituted infringement upon the Plaintiff. It shall undertake the liability for indemnifying the Plaintiff against the loss arising therefrom according to the Maritime Code of the PRC and the relevant laws and regulations. The court is requested to order that the Defendant compensate the Plaintiff for the economic loss of RMB40,000,000 and undertake the court fees and all other expenses in this case. 


The Plaintiff provided the following evidences within the time limit for adducing evidence: 1. The logbook of Shantou Seabed Cable Landing Station; 2. Record on failure of the facilities; 3. Table of registration on monitoring the routes of international seabed cables; 4. Estimation report on the repair cost for the damaged seabed cables; 5. Analytical report on the technical and economic influence of the interruption of the Sino-US and Asia-Europe seabed cables; 6. Public announcement of the State Ocean Bureau; 7. Route map and brief introduction of the Asia-Europe seabed optic cable; 8. Route map and brief introduction of the Sino-US seabed optic cables; 9. Location map of the Asia-Europe and Sino-US seabed cables at waters of Shantou; 10. Maritime Announcements 996(P)/99, 2239(P)/00 and 4886/2000 published by the British Waterway Measuring Bureau; 11. The English sea charts No.854 and No.1968; 12. E-mails concerning the location of the breakpoints of the seabed cables; 13. Videos and printed photos regarding the sea conditions which were taken at Shantou Seabed Cable Landing Station after the accident; 14. Photos taken at Shantou Seabed Cable Landing Station; 15. Civil Judgement (1997)QHFSCZ No.64; 16. Weather forecast; 17. Invoice for the cost of repairing the seabed cables; 18. Agreement on construction and maintenance of the Asia-Europe seabed cable system; 19. Agreement on construction and maintenance of the Sino-US cable network; 20. The Process of Repairing Shantou Seabed Cables and the Relevant Expenses issued by the Sino-British Seabed System Co. Ltd.; 21. Certification on Telegraphic Remittance of the costs for repairing seabed cables. 


The Defendant Shanghai Xin Hai Tian Shipping Co. Ltd. defended that: the Plaintiff did not provide the evidences that can prove that ?°An Da Hai?± hooked and broke the seabed cables. The Plaintiff is groundless at all to claim that M/V ?°An Da Hai?± owned by the Defendant hooked and broke the seabed cables when she was at anchor at the waters of Shantou Qiwang Bay. As the owner and manager of the Sino-US seabed cable and the Asia-Europe seabed cable in the Chinese region, the Plaintiff laid and used the seabed cables at the Shantou waters, but it did not report the actions accordingly to the relevant departments and authorities according to the relevant Chinese laws and regulations for the purpose of the relevant departments and authorities to publish the notice so that plotting can be made on the sea chart. Therefore, the hooking damage of the seabed cables was caused by the fault of the Plaintiff. The responsibility shall be undertaken by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has not provided the survey report on the hooking damage of the seabed cables, report on accomplishment of the repair and the basis for paying the repair costs, therefore its claim is without basis. The court is requested to dismiss the litigation requests filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant. 


The Defendant Shanghai Xin Hai Tian Shipping Co. Ltd. provided the following evidences within the time limit for adducing evidence: 1. Certificate of Nationality, Certificate of Registry of Ownership and other ship survey certificates of M/V ?°An Da Hai?±; 2. Sea Chart No.15100 for the waters of Shantou Qiwang Bay before the seabed cables sustained the hooking damage; 3. Certificates of competence of the master and some crewmembers of M/V ?°An Da Hai?±; 4. Report addressed by the master of ?°An Da Hai?± to MSA Shantou on suspicion of damaging the seabed cables; 5. Relevant news reports; 6. Index of provisional notices; 7. Relevant administrative regulations and administrative methods published by relevant Chinese administrative departments; 8. Sea Chart No.15100 published after the seabed cables sustained the hooking damage; 9. Ship??s position chart when ?°An Da Hai?± was at anchor; 10. Navigational Warning No.0183; 11. Distribution and movement chart for other ships  when the seabed cables sustained the hooking damage; 12. Explanation on the symbols of the relevant cables on the sea chart; 13. Letter of the Defendant to MSA Shantou; 14. Agreement on underwater probing of the anchor of ?°An Da Hai?±; 15. Quotation for the underwater probing of the anchor of ?°An Da Hai?±; 16. Distribution chart for the nodes of the seabed cables at Shantou; 17. Photos and construction and layout plan of ?°An Da Hai?±; 18. Explanation on the type of ?°An Da Hai?±. The Defendant also arranged the master Huang Dewei, the second officer Zhang Gongren, the third officer Liu Haiting of M/V ?°An Da Hai?± to attend the court hearing as witness. 


According to the Plaintiff??s application for pre-trial preservation of maritime evidences, this court made a ruling on September 28, 2001 to collect the copies of the engine logbooks, telegraph records, deck logbooks several days before and after September 20, 2001 and sea charts of ?°An Da Hai?±. During the course of the litigation, at the application of the Plaintiff, this court collected the report on suspicion of damaging the seabed cables that the master of ?°An Da Hai?± addressed to MSA Shantou and the written record of investigation and inquiry that MSA Shantou made to the master, chief officer and carpenter of M/V ?°An Da Hai?±. At the application of the Defendant, this court collected from the Unit 91162 of the PLA a copy of the certification on the sea conditions observed by the Unit on the day the seabed cables sustained the hooking damage. 


Upon examination, it is ascertained that the Plaintiff and the Defendant have no dissension from the following evidences and facts: the Asia-Europe seabed cable system (SEA-ME-WE3) is an intercontinental optic cable communication system for which the Plaintiff has participated in the construction. It was delivered for use in 1999. The cable has 33 landing stations in 39 countries and regions. The landing stations in China are set up at Shantou, Guangdong and Chongming Island, Shanghai respectively. Among them, the Shantou seabed cable landing station is a trunk line station, which is directly linked with two neighboring trunk line stations (at Okinawa, Japan and Singapore). The Asia-Europe seabed cable system is consisted of Section T and Section S, among which Section S2 is the interface of Section S of the cable system at the terminals of Shantou, Shenshui Bay, Taipa, Ba Da Yan, Danang, Tungku, Feng Sheng and Tuas. The Plaintiff is the maintenance supervisor for the part of the seabed cable linking China. According to the agreement on construction and maintenance of the Asia-Europe seabed cable system, when the cable or some part of it is damaged, the corresponding maintenance supervisor may claim for the compensation, lodge an action or initiate other legal proceedings in its own name on behalf of all parties. 


The Sino-US seabed cable system is an international optic cable lying across the Pacific Ocean the construction of which was initiated jointly by the Defendant and the main telecommunications companies of Japan and the United States. It was handed over for use in 1999. The cable has 9 landing points in total. The landing stations in China are set up at Shantou, Guangdong and Chongming Island, Shanghai respectively. The Sino-US seabed cable system is composed of Sections E, N, S, T and W, among which Section S1 is the part of Section S between the cable network interface of Shantou Seabed landing station and SBU1. Section W3 is the part of Section W between Shantou seabed cable landing station and WBU. The Plaintiff is the initiator of the Sino-US seabed cable system and the maintenance supervisor of the section linking to China. According to the agreement on construction and maintenance of the Sino-US seabed cable system, when the cable or some part of it is damaged, the corresponding maintenance supervisor may claim for compensation, lodge an action or initiate other petitions in its own name on behalf of all parties. 


On September 1, 1998, the State Ocean Bureau published a public notice in China Ocean Report regarding that the Sino-US seabed cable system was to be laid at the territorial waters within the jurisdiction of China. The Navigational Notice 996(P)/00 published by the British Waterway Measuring Bureau discloses the routes that the Asia-Europe seabed cable will be laid at the Shantou waters. On June 1, 2000, the British Waterway Measuring Bureau published the Public Notice 2239(P)/00, disclosing the routes that the Asia-Europe seabed cable will be laid at the Shantou waters and the sea chart of the waters affected. In the same year, the British Waterway Measuring Bureau published the Public Notice NO.4886, canceling the Public Notices 996(P)/99 and 2239(P)/00 but re-publishing the location of the Asia-Europe seabed cable at the Shantou waters and the sea chart of the waters affected. The English sea charts No.854 and No.1968 published by the British Waterway Measuring Bureau displayed the laid location, routes and landing points of the Asia-Europe seabed cable system at Shantou waters. After the Sino-US seabed cable and the Asia-Europe seabed cable were laid, the competent maritime administration of China has not issued the relevant navigational notice, and the Chinese sea chart published by the relevant Chinese departments has made no remarks of the seabed cables either. 


According to the duty logbook of the Plaintiff??s Shantou seabed cable landing station, at 1025 hrs on September 20, 2001, Section S of the Sino-US seabed cable sustained an interruption. The breakpoint was about 10.182km from Shantou. At 1026 hrs, Section W of the Sino-US seabed cable sustained an interruption, and the breakpoint was 10.062km from Shantou. At 1028 hrs, Section S2 of the Asia-Europe seabed cable sustained an interruption, and the breakpoint was 1.43km from Shantou. The staffs of Shantou seabed cable landing station made videos with video camera of the sea conditions in the Qiwang Bay in the vicinity of the landing station at about 1230 hrs. The video shows that the wind force was high at that moment; there was a vessel not far away from the landing station, whose bridge was at stern, with high mast in the middle and the fore quarters respectively. The Plaintiff alleged that the vessel was ?°An Da Hai?± owned by the Defendant. After the vessel damaged the seabed cables she was then blown to a place quite close to the bank. 


?°An Da Hai?± is a steel bulk carrier, built in 1974, 174.07m in length, 25.45m in width, 14.02m in depth, with gross tonnage 18,247 and net tonnage 9,643. The owner is the Defendant. The vessel has no high masts. Her shape and size are obviously different from the one shown in the video taken by the staffs of Shantou seabed cable landing station. They are not identical to each other.


On September 17, 2001, ?°An Da Hai?± encountered a typhoon when she was on the way from Fangcheng port to a northern port of China. She dropped anchor at the waters near Qiwang Bay south to Shantou port to take shelter from the typhoon. On September 20, the typhoon landed between Shantou and Lufeng. At 0800 hrs, the center of the typhoon was located at the sea surface about 70km east-south-east to Shantou. The highest scale of wind force around the wind center was 11, and the wind force was on the increase. According to the deck logbook of ?°An Da Hai?±, at 0800 hrs of that day, the anchor position of ?°An Da Hai?± was at 23009??.84N/116044??.58E. At that moment, there was heavy rain and strong wind above the sea, accompanied with rough waves. The vessel additionally dropped the starboard anchor. The anchor position at 1000 hrs was at 23009??.93N/116044??.12E. At 1200 hrs, she was at 23009??.97N/116044??.14E. At 1400 hrs, she was at 23009??.9N/116044??.1. At 1540 hrs, as the typhoon force decreased, to prevent the two anchors from interwined, ?°An Da Hai?± lifted the starboard anchor. The vessel??s position at 1600 hrs was same as that at 1400 hrs. During this period the anchor positions of ?°An Da Hai?± were always located at the area through which routes of the Sino-US seabed cable and the Asia-Europe seabed cable went. The master Huang Dewei, the chief officer Wu Fahong of ?°An Da Hai?±, when being investigated by MSA Shantou, the second officer Zhang Gangren, when giving witness statement at the court hearing, alleged that: when ?°An Da Hai?± was at anchor at the waters near Qiwang Bay, the second officer had used pencil to mark the locations of some seabed cables on the sea chart. Both the master and the chief officer knew that there were seabed cables in the vicinity of the anchor position of the vessel, but they considered that to anchor at that location would not damage the seabed cables. 


Unit 91162 of the PLA issued a certification to this court on March 12, 2002, stating that: at 0830 hrs on September 20, 2001, the Unit received a notice from the maritime safety administration saying that the international optic cables had been interrupted, and the Unit was requested to search whether there were any target vessels berthing in the seabed cable area. After searching the sea area, a target vessel numbered 835pi was found berthing in that area, and two medium-sized target vessels numbered 857pi and 867pi were sailing normally. It was observed that the movements of the said three target vessels were as follows: the target vessel numbered 835pi berthed at 1242 hrs on September 18. She lifted anchor and sailed northward on September 24. The anchor position of the vessel was at 2250 from the observation point in a distance of 20.10 nautical miles. The vessel numbered 857pi entered the sea area on September 20. Between 0743 hrs and 1900 hrs, she was located at 1630-2230 of the observation point and sailing within an area in the distance of 23.50-39.40 nautical miles from the observation point. The vessel was seen at 2230 of the observation point at 1900 hrs, berthing at the position 24.10 nautical miles away. The vessel numbered 867pi entered the sea area at 1054 hrs from the observation point. She was located at 2220-2340 from 1054 hrs to 1900 hrs and sailing in an area in the distance of 33.10-49.40 nautical miles away. The vessel berthed at 1900 hrs. The vessel numbered 835pi was just the vessel ?°An Da Hai?±. The sailing scope of the vessel numbered 857pi was also located in the routing region of the Sino-US seabed cable and the Asia-Europe seabed cable. 


The collegiate bench ascertained and accepted the above evidences and facts. 


The Plaintiff has provided one copy of the registration table for monitoring the routing of international seabed cables affixed with the chop of the Unit 91162 of the PLA, which states that: the Unit received a notice at 1030 hrs on September 20, 2001, informing that the Sino-US seabed cable might be interrupted at the point 20-30km away from Shantou and assistance was required. At 1050 hrs, after searching the sea, the Unit found that there was a Chinese merchant ship berthing at 23009??.9B/116044??.00E. On basis of the registration table the Plaintiff alleged that when the Sino-US seabed cable and the Asia-Europe seabed cable were interrupted, at the waters where the accident occurred there was only one vessel, that is, M/V ?°An Da Hai?±. The Defendant held that the registration table was not issued by the Unit 91162 of the PLA, and the contents of the registration table was not in line with the facts, therefore it refused to confirm and verify the registration table. The collegiate bench holds that as there is no original of the registration table submitted by the Plaintiff for verification with the copy, and the contents are not in line with the certification provided by the Unit 91162 of the PLA to this court and with the video of the Shantou seabed cable landing station provided by the Plaintiff, therefore the registration table will not be adopted. 


After the Sino-US seabed cable and the Asia-Europe seabed cable were interrupted, the Plaintiff entrusted Sino-British Seabed System Co. Ltd. to repair the cables. The Process of Repairing Shantou Seabed Cables and the Relevant Expenses issued by the Sino-British Seabed System Co. Ltd. states that: Sino-British Seabed System Co. Ltd. repaired the interrupted Sino-US seabed cable and the Asia-Europe seabed cable during the period from September 23, 2001 to May 9, 2002, and the repair cost was USD4,612,435.50 in total. The Process of Repairing Shantou Seabed Cables and the Relevant Expenses detailed the items of the repair, the amount of the repair cost, the invoice number and the payers of the repair cost. The payers of the repair cost are the six companies including the Plaintiff and Chunghwa Telecom Limited, Korea Telecom. The repair cost paid by the Plaintiff was USD3,472,119.18. The invoices provided by the Plaintiff for the repair cost and issued by Sino-British Seabed System Co. Ltd. to the said payers, have the same numbers and amounts as those listed in the Process of Repairing Shantou Seabed Cables and the Relevant Expenses. In addition, the Plaintiff also provided the bank??s certification of payment to prove that it had paid Sino-British Seabed System Co. Ltd. the repair cost of RMB28,961,779.59. The Defendant had no dissension from the truthfulness of the said evidences. However, it considered that as the Plaintiff had not provided the relevant survey report, therefore it was unable to confirm whether the payment of the said repair cost was reasonable. The collegiate bench holds that the Process of Repairing Shantou Seabed Cables and the Relevant Expenses, the invoice for the repair cost issued by the Sino-British Seabed System Co. Ltd. and the bank??s certification for the Plaintiff??s payment of the repair cost can be corroborated with each other. Under the circumstance that the Defendant failed to provide sufficient contrary evidences, the amount of the repair cost stated in the said evidence shall be confirmed and accepted, that is, the cost for repairing the interrupted Sino-US seabed cable and Asia-Europe seabed cable amount to USD4,612,435.50.


According to the Analytical Report on the Technical and Economic Influence resulting from the Interruption of the Sino-US and Asia-Europe Seabed Cables issued by the Design Institute of Post and Telecom of the Ministry of Information Industry on January 21, 2002, the Sino-US seabed cable and the Asia-Europe seabed cable were interrupted on September 20, 2001. After testing, it was ascertained that the points of failure were located at about 1.30km from Shantou. The points of failure in the three optic cables were basically on a straight line. According to the photo and analysis on basis of experience on the breakpoints of the Shantou seabed cables in failure, it is most probable that the interruption of the seabed cables was caused by direct hitting of the anchor dropped by the vessel or the cables were hooked at the time of anchor dragging. According to analysis, due to the interruption and repair of the Sino-US seabed cable and the Asia-Europe seabed cable, the loss in respect of quality of the optic cables was estimated to be USD2,518,085. The Defendant held that the analytical report lacked scientific basis and could not be taken as the evidence to support the loss sustained by the Plaintiff. The collegiate bench holds that: under the circumstance that the Defendant could not provide contrary evidences, the fact of the analytical report issued by the Design Institute of Post and Telecom of the Ministry of Information Industry on January 21, 2002 shall be confirmed and accepted. 


It is otherwise found out that: when the Plaintiff applied to this court for pre-trial preservation of maritime evidences, it prepaid the application fee of RMB5,000 and the execution fee of RMB20,000 to this court. In the course of litigation, the Plaintiff and the Defendant applied to this court for investigation and collection of the evidences, and prepaid the investigation and evidence collection fees of RMB2,000 and RMB3,000 respectively to this court. 


The members of the collegiate bench unanimously hold that: this case is a dispute over damage to underwater facilities through contact of ship. The Asia-Europe seabed cable system and the Sino-US seabed cable system involved in this case were jointly constructed by the Plaintiff and the relevant parties from other countries or regions. They are the international optic cable communication system linking China and other countries, which is related to the rights and interests of the relevant parties from various countries and regions. As the two optic cable systems sustained damage within China, that is, the act of infringement took place in China, according to Article 146 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the PRC which provides that the law of the place where an infringing act is committed shall be applied in handling compensation claims for any damage caused by the act, so the Chinese laws shall be applicable in settling this case. 


As the joint owner of the Sino-US seabed cable system and the Asia-Europe seabed cable system and the maintenance supervisor of the section linking China, according to the agreement on construction and maintenance of the cable system, when the cable under its maintenance sustains damage, the Plaintiff has the right to lodge a claim in its own name on behalf of all relevant parties. In this case, the damage to the seabed cable falls within the scope of the Plaintiff??s maintenance and supervision. Therefore, the Plaintiff has the right to lodge compensation claims in its own name in respect of the damage to the seabed cable. 


The Plaintiff claimed that ?°An Da Hai?± owned by the Defendant was the vessel causing the damage to the seabed cables in this case and provided evidences in this regard according to law. According to the video provided by the Plaintiff, which was taken at the waters nearby after the accident of the damage to seabed cables took place, the vessel found in the video is obviously not the vessel ?°An Da Hai?±. Furthermore, according to the observation of the Unit 91162 of the PLA, when the seabed cables sustained the damage, besides ?°An Da Hai?± which was at anchor within the routing region of the seabed cables, there was another vessel sailing against the typhoon. The said facts reveal that: at the moment when the Asia-Europe seabed cable system and the Sino-US seabed cable system sustained damage, there were at least two or three vessels including ?°An Da Hai?± sailing or berthing within the routing region of the seabed cables. These vessel were all possible to cause damage to the seabed cables. Although the crewmembers of ?°An Da Hai?± were aware that there were seabed cables in the vicinity of the anchor position of the vessel, and in fact the vessel was anchored in the routing region of the Asia-Europe seabed cable and the Sino-US seabed cable systems, this can only show that ?°An Da Hai?± had the possibility to cause the damage, but it cannot ascertain that ?°An Da Hai?± is just the accident-causing vessel. Therefore, the Plaintiff??s claim that the vessel ?°An Da Hai?± owned by the Defendant caused damage to the seabed cables in this case is lack of sufficient evidential basis and is untenable. It is without factual and legal basis for the Plaintiff to claim that the Defendant should compensate for the loss of the seabed cables, therefore such claim is not supported by this court and will be rejected according to law.


Pursuant to paragraph 1 of Article 64 of the Civil Procedure Law of the PRC, the judgement is rendered as follows:


The litigation requests filed by China Telecom Corporation against the Defendant Shanghai Xin Hai Tian Shipping Co. Ltd. shall be dismissed. 


The case acceptance fee in this case is in sum of RMB211,560. The application fee of RMB5,000 prepaid by the Plaintiff for pre-trial preservation of maritime evidences, the execution fee of RMB20,000, the investigation and evidence collection fee of RMB2,000, shall be undertaken by the Plaintiff. The investigation and evidence collection fee of RMB3,000 prepaid by the Defendant Shanghai Xin Hai Tian Shipping Co. Ltd. shall be undertaken by the Defendant. 


If any party is not satisfied with this judgement, it may submit a statement of appeal to this court within 15 days upon service of this judgement, together with copies according to the number of the opposite parties. The appellate court shall be the Higher People??s Court of Guangdong Province. 



Presiding Judge: Zhan Simin

Judge: Chen Weiguo

Judge: Xu Yuanping

November 13, 2002

Assistant Judge: Pan Guancong

Court Clerk: Zhu Mingfang