Visit JCPCUKSC/2018/0173
•
PROCEDURE
Shagang Shipping Company Ltd (in liquidation) (Appellant) v HNA Group Company Ltd (Respondent)
Case summary
Case ID
UKSC/2018/0173
Parties
Appellant(s)
Shagang Shipping Company Ltd (in liquidation)
Respondent(s)
HNA Group Company Ltd
Intervener(s)
Liberty
Issue
Whether the Judge made a finding that torture had not been proved on the balance of probabilities. The correct treatment of hearsay evidence in a civil trial where the possibility of torture cannot be ruled out. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in rejecting the contention that a payment to an individual who was not an employee or agent should not give rise to an irrebuttable presumption of bribery.
Facts
The Appellant ("Shagang") and the Respondent ("HNA") are both based in China. In August 2008, a charterparty was concluded between Shagang and Grand China Shipping Co Ltd ("Grand China"). HNA provided a guarantee for Grand China's payment obligations under the charterparty dated 6 August 2008 ("the guarantee"). On 9 December 2010, Shagang made a demand to HNA under the guarantee, after Grand China defaulted. HNA declined to pay. The charterparty was terminated.The present English proceedings were issued against HNA in September 2012, when Shagang sued on the guarantee. HNA's defences are fraudulent non-disclosure and illegality. HNA claims that a bribe of RMB 300,000 was paid by Mr Xu Wenxhong ("Mr Xu"), an employee of Shagang, on instructions by Mr Shen Wenfu ("Mr Shen"), then General Manager of Shagang, to Mr Xu’s college acquaintance Mr Jia Tingsheng ("Mr Jia T"). This was alleged to have been done with a view to Mr Jia T persuading his father, Mr Jia Hongxiang ("Mr Jia H"), to approve the charterparty as quickly as possible. Mr Jia H was a General Manager within HNA and CEO of Grand China.In support of its bribery case, HNA relied on admissions made by Mr Xu, Mr Jia T and Mr Shen to officers of the Haikou Public Security Bureau ("the PSB") and a guilty plea by Mr Xu in the Chinese criminal courts. Shagang alleged that the confession evidence was obtained by torture and was therefore inadmissible.On 16 May 2016, Knowles J in the Commercial Court did not find bribery by Shagang, but also stated that he could not rule out the possibility of torture but that the available evidence did not equip him well to reach a firmer conclusion. Knowles J granted judgment in favour of Shagang for US$68,641,712. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on 23 July 2018, admitted new evidence and remitted the case to the Commercial Court for a partial retrial to determine whether bribery had occurred on the basis that Knowles J had already found, as a matter of law, that there was no torture.
Date of issue
20 August 2018
Judgment appealed
Judgment details
Judgment date
5 August 2020
Neutral citation
[2020] UKSC 34
Judgment links
Judgment summary
5 August 2020
Appeal
Justices
Hearing dates
Full hearing
Start date
15 June 2020
End date
16 June 2020
Watch hearings
15 June 2020 - Morning session
15 June 2020 - Afternoon session
16 June 2020 - Morning session
16 June 2020 - Afternoon session
All videos on this page are recorded and transmitted in line with the Court's terms of use. These can be found here.. Please Note: Every effort is being made to provide a satisfactory streaming service of the Supreme Court judgments and hearings. However, these services may be subject to technical issues or delay, in which case we will attempt to resolve them as soon as possible.
Change log
Last updated 16 April 2024