I.                 Overview

 

(I)              Basic statistics

 

1.     Statistics on cases accepted and concluded

 

Throughout the year of 2019, the Court in total handled 3131 cases including 2884 cases newly accepted and 247 cases left over from previous years. 2857 cases were concluded in the year, making the clearance rate reach 91.25%.

 

In 2019, the Court in total handled 2502 contentious cases, 2414 of which were newly accepted (consisting of 1271 first-instance admiralty and maritime cases, 1086 admiralty and maritime cases of special procedure^[1], and 57 maritime administrative cases), involving a total value of RMB 2,795,784,600. In the year, the Court concluded 2322 contentious cases (consisting of 1198 first-instance admiralty and maritime cases, 1074 admiralty and maritime cases of special procedure, and 50 maritime administrative cases), amongst which 287 cases were concluded by judgment, 162 settled through mediation, 652 withdrawn and 1221 concluded by other means, making the clearance rate of contentious cases reach 92.81%, 0.69% lower than that in the previous year.

 

In the year, the Court in total handled 629 enforcement cases, and 470 cases were newly accepted (including 20 administrative enforcement cases), involving a total value of RMB 1,297,123,900. 535 enforcement cases were concluded in the year (including 12 administrative enforcement cases), with the effective enforcement value totaling RMB 3,884,824,600. The clearance rate of enforcement cases reached 85.06%, 4.28% higher than that in the previous year.

 

2.     Quality and efficiency of trials

 

(1) In 2019, there were 88 contentious cases left over from previous years, amongst which 74 cases were concluded and 14 cases were pending, making the clearance rate of cases left over from previous years reach 84.09%. 17 contentious cases were pending for over one year.

 

(2) The rates of mediation and withdrawal of contentious cases were 34.12% and 53.78% respectively.

 

(3) The rate of satisfaction with first-instance judgments was 88.56%, showing a slight decrease compared with 2018. The rate of amendment of first-instance judgments and remand for retrial was 5.49%, also showing a slight decrease compared with the last year. 24 judgments were amended in the second instance, and 2 cases were remanded for retrial.

 

(4) The rate of clearance within statutory period for trial reached 100%.

 

(5) The rate of application of summary procedure in the first instance was 65.19%, showing a year-on-year increase of 30.26%.

 

(6) The rate of clearance within statutory period of cases where property is available for enforcement reached 93.52%, showing a year-on-year increase of 1.57%.

 

(7) 25 vessels were arrested, and 31 were put up for auction or sale, amongst which 19 vessels were successfully auctioned or sold, with the total transaction amount being RMB 124 million.

 

3.     Other statistics

 

(1)  2635 judgments were published online, making the disclosure rate of judgments reach 91.65%. Upon inquiry in the system, there was no effective judgment that shall have been published online but had not been so published.

 

(2)  256 hearings were live broadcasted, attracting 74419 views.

 

(3)  The disclosure rate of judicial process information reached 100%, with the effective disclosure rate of such information being 95.86%.

 

(4)  By the end of 2019, the rate of electronic filing reached 95.9%.

 

(II)           Highlights

 

1.     The Court issued the Implementation Opinions on Service and Safeguard for Further Acceleration of Building of Powerful Marine Province. The Court successfully concluded a range of cases related to marine engineering, new marine industries and forms of business, represented by cases of dispute over compensation for aquaculture damage arising from the project of construction of offshore wind farm in Putian Pinghai Bay with total investment amount of nearly RMB 5 billion, dispute over international multimodal transport related to “Maritime Silk Road” and dispute over sale and purchase of yacht. This offered a powerful judicial safeguard for the ocean exploitation and marine construction.

 

2.     The Court properly heard the first case involving maritime administrative monopoly in China-Fujian Quanzhou Haisi Ship Evaluation Consultation Co., Ltd. v. Fuding Ocean and Fishery Bureau where the former alleged the latter restricted fair competition, and finally judged that the administrative organ violated the law in its setting improper market access conditions and limiting the scope of fishery ship evaluation institutions, having protected the open, fair and equal market competition order. This case was listed as one of the 10 Model Cases of Fujian Courts in 2019.

 

3.     With respect to the case regarding encroachment of the wetland of national importance and the nature reserve in Ningde Sandu Bay that was subject to the Central Inspection of Ecological and Environmental Protection (CIEEP), the Court organized and carried out powerful non-contentious administrative enforcement in the manner of “separating enforcement from judgment” and all unlawful aquaculture facilities in an area of 170 hectares were removed. This case was honored by the Supreme People’s Court as “a model that is referential, copyable and promotable for solving the difficulties in judicial enforcement related to marine ecology”, and was also listed as one of the 10 Model Maritime Trial Cases of Chinese Courts in 2019.

 

4.     The Court summarized the administrative trial work having been accomplished since maritime administrative cases were re-included into the scope of case acceptance in 2016, published the first Report of Judicial Review of Maritime Administrative Cases in Fujian, and leaded the arrangement of a forum with Fujian maritime administrative organs themed on the maritime administrative trial and administrative law enforcement work, to promote the standardization of administrative law enforcement and the modernization of maritime governance system and capability.

 

5.     The Court continued promoting the establishment of the one-stop diversified dispute resolution mechanism and one-stop litigation service. The resolution of a ship collision case that occurred at midnight by the Court at the front end by means of litigation and mediation connection was reported and praised by CCTV. The Court also successfully fulfilled its first cross-province case acceptance and first cross-province case mediation via the online judicial platform, realizing the upgrade of litigation service.

 

6.     The Court referred to the public security organ its first case of crime of refusing to perform judgment or ruling. A Mr. Chen who transferred his arrested ship was sentenced to imprisonment of one year and 6 months, plus fine. This case was reported on the front page of the special issue regarding enforcement of the People’s Court Daily. With the increase of enforcement strength and punishment, the enforcement effect was further improved. An enforcement case involving a contract of sale and purchase of a yacht was listed as one of the Top 10 Enforcement Cases of Fujian Courts in 2019.

 

7.     A judgment rendered by the Court was awarded as one of the “100 Excellent Judgments” of Chinese courts, being the sole civil judgment winning this award in Fujian Province. A case study analysis of the Court won the second prize in the activity of “Selection of Excellent Case Study Analyses of Chinese Courts in 2019”, the highest award won by maritime courts. The Court further deepened the judicial transparency by publishing online English translation of judgments, in addition to introduction of model maritime cases in English. This Court ranked top out of all maritime courts in China in terms of the number of judgments included in the CML CMI Database of Judicial Decisions on International Conventions jointly established by the Comite Maritime International and the Centre for Maritime Law of the National University of Singapore.

 

II.             Main features of cases

 

(I)    Newly-accepted and concluded contentious cases significantly increased.

 

In the year of 2019, 2414 new contentious cases were accepted by the Court, up 102% over 2018, and 2322 contentious cases were concluded, up 87.11% over 2018. The significant increase in number of both newly-accepted and concluded contentious cases was mainly attributable to the occurrence of 905 cases of registration of maritime claims and 512 serial cases of dispute over liability for marine aquaculture damage.

 

 

 

Comparison of Contentious Cases Accepted and Concluded

from 2017 to 2019

 

 

 

Types of Cases Newly Accepted in 2019

 

 

Distribution Chart of Causes of Action of Admiralty and Maritime Cases Newly-Accepted in 2019

 

 

(II) Newly-accepted admiralty and maritime cases changed in the composition of types

 

From the perspective of number, three types of first-instance contentious cases significantly increased: (1) admiralty and maritime cases involving people’s livelihood affairs. The increase of such cases was attributable to the sharp increase of disputes over liability for marine aquaculture damage up to 514 cases. In the year, the Court accepted 68 cases of dispute over liability for personal injury at sea, up 28.30% over 2018, and accepted 99 cases of dispute over seaman service contract, down 30.77% from 2018; (2) traditional cases of dispute over contract of carriage. In the year, the Court accepted totally 201 new cases of this type, up 52.2% over 2018, including 105 cases of dispute over contract of carriage of goods by sea, 64 cases of dispute over contract of freight forwarding by sea, and 32 cases of dispute over voyage charter party; (3) other first-instance admiralty and maritime cases with causes not listed. This type of cases was principally related to marine engineering or maritime financial services. The Court in total accepted 56 cases of this type, 4 times more than those in 2018.

 

From the perspective of the value involved, there were 256 cases involving the value more than RMB 1.0 million, up 24.3% over 2018. These cases involved totally RMB 2.58 billion, accounting for 92% of the total value of all newly-accepted contentious cases, up 10% over 2018. To rank in the sequence of the value involved from high to low, the other admiralty and maritime cases referred to in preceding paragraph ranked the first place with the total value involved being RMB 395 million, cases of dispute over shipbuilding contract ranked the second place with RMB 383 million, and cases of dispute over contract of ship mortgage ranked the third place with RMB 310 million. In respect of the average value involved in one single case, cases of dispute over channel or port dredging contract remained in the first place with RMB 31.7 million per case, and cases of dispute over shipbuilding contract followed with RMB 19.15 million per case.

 

From the perspective of the subject matters, 1490 new cases involving Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan and foreign affairs (including 1456 cases involving foreign affairs, 12 cases involving Taiwan and 22 cases involving Hong Kong) were accepted in the year, showing an increase of 1324 cases over 2018. The increase in number of such cases was attributable to two serial cases involving foreign affairs arising from ship-induced pollution accidents (consisting of 1417 cases). Nevertheless, without taking the serial cases into consideration, the newly-accepted cases involving Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan and foreign affairs still involved a total value of approximately RMB 500 million. Besides, in line with the trend in recent years that more and more participation of insurers in lawsuits, the year of 2019 witnessed 107 cases involving a total value of RMB 230 million in which insurance companies and mutual insurance organizations participated either as a party to the marine insurance contract or the insurer intending to exercise subrogation rights or liable party against whom the claim was directly filed, showing an increase of about 70% over 2018. Furthermore, new types of cases involving sailboats and yachts, cruise travel, right to use port coastline, independent letter of undertaking and other non-typical security, and ecological public interest litigation came in sight, making disputed subject matters more diverse and legal relationships more complicated.

 

The change in the composition of types of newly-accepted admiralty and maritime cases, though influenced by occasional factors to some extent, objectively reflected the economic development of the shipping industry in recent years. From 2018 to 2019, the freight volume handled by Chinese ports kept increasing, but due to the impact of changes in the international and domestic supply and demand structure, market environment and relevant policies, the shipping businesses were encountered with fluctuations and adjustments. On the other hand, with the advancement of the building of a powerful marine state, China intensified its efforts in ocean exploitation and maintained its leading position in the international shipbuilding market, industries of manufacture, logistics, finance and service were integrated to an increasing extent, and new industries and forms of business continuously emerged. As a result, relevant shipping disputes increased, more cases of new types emerged, and cases of significant amount in dispute further tended to arising from disputes over foreign affairs, shipping finance, ocean engineering and naval architecture.

 

(III)    The difficulty in trial of administrative litigation cases regarding illegal occupation of sea areas was great.

 

With two rounds of CIEEPs in 2017 and 2018, Fujian Province enhanced investigation and punishment of illegal occupations of coastal sea areas and, after investigation and punishment, the cases with greater difficulty and more disputes successively became administrative litigation cases handled by courts in 2019, resulting in a significant increase in numbers of this type of cases in the year of 2019. As the typical feature of this type of cases, most of the illegal occupations of sea areas lasted for more than one or two decades. Besides many disputes in facts, as sea-related or tidal flat-related laws, rules and regulations had been amended during such long period, there are many disputes in the application of law and great difficulty in the trial. In concluded cases, it is not rare to see administrative organs lose cases due to unclear verification of facts and wrongful application of law.

 

(IV)    Clearance of left-over enforcement cases achieved a notable result.

 

In 2019, there were 159 enforcement cases left over from previous years, 60.38% of which, i.e. 96 cases, were long pending beyond the statutory period for enforcement. To mainly clear up such long-pending cases, the Court established a special clearance team and meanwhile enhanced supervision and management of cases. By the end of 2019, only 23 long-pending enforcement cases left unconcluded. Such notable result contributed to the improvement of quality and efficiency of enforcement in the whole year. The rate of clearance within statutory period of cases where property is available for enforcement, the clearance rate of enforcement cases, the pass rate of cases concluded by termination of current enforcement proceedings and all other key core indicators for enforcement work in 2019 met the relevant requirements prescribed by the Supreme People’s Court.

 

III.       Special issues in the 2019 trials and recommendations

 

(I)              Policy risk in shipping operation

 

The development of marine economy in a country is always in close connection with the shipping policy of the country. In 2019, the Court heard several cases concerning disputes over maritime contracts in the context of policy change, e.g., disputes over cancellation of sales contract and refund of old sailboat due to new requirements for ship certificates of inspection in operation of sailboats, disputes over damages for breach of contract caused by absence of cargo after strict administration of sea sand transportation or arrest of the carrying vessel as the sea sand she was carrying was illegally exploited, disputes over port charges incurred after the terminal yard was not available due to the upgrading of requirements by the customs on security and environmental protection and supervision. The Court double-checked the terms of the contracts, carefully analyzed the impact of the policy change on performance of the contracts, reasonably divided the risk by implementing the principle of freedom of contract, respecting the principle of autonomy of will and promoting the principle of good faith, and made judgments based on the faults of the parties. The judgments so made by the Court are universally accepted and recognized in the industry. Taking lessons from precedents, relevant market entities in future operation should: (1) improve risk assessment on development and change of industry policies, and have a better understanding of relevant policy environment and future trend, particularly for new industries, new forms of business and new business models, to avoid wrong decisions in investment and transaction; (2) perfect the contract terms, expressly writing the division of risks of policy change and the rights and obligations of the parties in the contract, to avoid potential disputes and loss; and (3) keep abreast of any update and change of market regulatory measures, and timely improve the compliance of the operation with the policies, to avoid being pursued for liability due to non-fulfilment of duties.

 

(II)           Probative force of insurance assessment reports

 

In cases concerning disputes over insurance claims or insurance subrogation, an assessment report issued by an assessment institution in respect of the occurrence is usually submitted by the insurer as evidence. Although the assessment institution is appointed by the insurer, as a third party institution, the assessment institution is neutral and professional, and thus the probative force of its assessment report should be recognized. However, as such assessment involves investigation, analysis and conclusion mainly from the angle of insurance claim by the insurer, the assessment report mainly aims to satisfy the requirements of the insurer, and thus the level of the probative force of the assessment report should be judged and determined subject to the specific factors of the case. When the purpose of proof of the assessment report is beyond its intended purpose, taking cargo transportation insurance for example, even if the occurrence was within the coverage, the conclusion cannot be definitely drawn that the carrier should be liable. The 2019 trials of this type of cases revealed the following problems in assessment reports when they were used as evidence: (1) omissions existed in investigation, e.g., the identification and description of the subject matter and the damage scope were not accurate and detailed enough, and the course of determining the loss, especially the cargo disposal course, was incomplete or too simple; (2) illustration was not comprehensive and sufficient, e.g., in the course of making determination, no specific comments were given on the inconsistent records in the underlying documents such as the contract or waybill, and no proper explanation was given in respect of some professional knowledge and rules of thumb that were adopted as basis of determination; (3) the insurer failed to coordinate with the adjuster in advance to properly arrange the attendance of the adjuster in court to testify and be questioned; (4) the insurer failed to take active and powerful measures to submit supplementary evidence or opinions from any person with professional knowledge to corroborate the assessment report which had defects. These problems not only weakened the probative force of the assessment report, but aroused extra troubles in the proceedings and increased litigation costs of dispute resolution.

 

(III)       Standardization of maritime administrative law enforcement

 

In recent years, with increase of punishments for sea-related law violations, three types of maritime administrative cases have seen a constant increase in number, namely, confiscation of ships that have no name or number, no ship certificates and no port of registry, punishment for illegal occupation of sea areas, and compulsory removal of illegal aquaculture facilities. In trial of maritime administrative cases, these problems were found in administrative law enforcements: (1) wrongful application of law, e.g., as the charging standards of royalties for using sea areas during illegal occupation were modified several times, it was common that the administrative organs applied a wrong standard when calculating the penalty; (2) noncompliance of law enforcement procedures, e.g., before compulsory removal of illegal aquaculture facilities, the administrative organ failed to urge for fulfillment; (3) defects in legitimacy of evidence, e.g., when measuring the illegally occupied sea area, the administrative organ failed to notify the private party to attend the site to confirm the boundary of the sea area, as a result of which the legitimacy of the measurement report was not recognized. The losing rate of the administrative organs in these cases tends to increase. In the future, on the basis of fulfilling strict and impartial justice, the Court will further implement the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Regarding the Responsibility of the Responsible Person of the Administrative Organ to Appear in Court, and promote the standardization of administrative law enforcement activities and substantive resolution of administrative disputes. The Court will timely compile precedents of sea-related administrative litigations to show common problems in sea-related administrative law enforcements and administrative litigation cases, and through case guidance, enhance positive interaction with administrative law enforcement organs and help sea-related administrative organs to improve their law enforcement level. Furthermore, the Court suggests sea-related administrative organs improve work coordination and further standardize administrative procedures in ship registration, approval of the use of sea areas, maritime administration and otherwise, to avoid problems such as duplicate law enforcement, or overlapping law enforcement, or application of different law enforcement standards due to trans-organ administrative law enforcement, better implement the requirement of “Administration by law”, and promote modernization of the ocean governance system and capacity.

 

IV.        Conclusions

 

Fulfilling Justice for the People and Equal Justice is the work theme of the people's courts. In the year of 2019, Xiamen Maritime Court carefully fulfilled its trial duties and issued impartial rulings and judgments for various types of cases, achieving new improvement and progress in judicial quality and efficiency. The year of 2020 will witness the 30^th anniversary of the founding of Xiamen Maritime Court, and taking it as a new starting point, the Court will base on specialized judicature, further strengthen researches to grasp maritime trial disciplines, improve and perfect specialized and convenient trail work mechanism and modern litigation service system, deepen judicial transparency, improve judicial quality, and better fulfil the goal and requirement of “striving to let the masses of the people feel equality and justice in every legal case”, to provide more solid assistance and protection for higher-standard opening up and development of the maritime economy.