From RMB 20 Million to RMB 11 Million: How Maritime Counsel Changed the Course of a Cross-Border Collision Claim
I. Start with the Rules: Chinese Waters, Chinese Law
The first battleground was choice of law. The collision took place in Guangzhou waters, but the claimant was a foreign shipowner. The question, therefore, was not academic: which law would frame the entire dispute? The team moved quickly under Article 273 of the Maritime Law of the People's Republic of China, arguing that because the alleged tort occurred in China, Chinese law should apply. That position anchored the defense and counterclaim from the outset and put the client on firmer procedural and substantive ground.
II. Turning the Liability Case: A Captain-Lawyer Reads the Navigation Evidence
The foreign shipowner's pleaded case was simple: blame the Chinese vessel entirely, alleging that it failed to keep to the starboard side of the fairway and failed to take timely avoiding action. But the evidence did not support such a one-sided account. Wang Yubao's background as an experienced captain proved crucial. With a practical command of the COLREGs and vessel-handling realities, he reviewed the deck logs, radar data, VHF communications, and related materials and identified weaknesses in the foreign vessel's own conduct: lookout, speed management, and emergency response. Those were not cosmetic issues. They went directly to whether the foreign vessel had exercised proper seamanship before the collision.
The team deliberately avoided framing the case as all-or-nothing. Article 169 of the Maritime Law provides for apportionment where both vessels are at fault, so the stronger argument was comparative fault: both sides bore responsibility, and the foreign vessel had to accept a share. By combining navigational analysis with legal apportionment, the team changed the other side's risk assessment. The foreign shipowner ultimately reduced its demand from nearly RMB 20 million to RMB 11 million, cutting the client's potential exposure by almost half.
III. Testing the Numbers: A Commercial Reality Check on the Loss Schedule
Liability was only half the battle. The foreign shipowner's claimed losses covered repairs, agency fees, survey fees, loss of hire, and other heads of claim. The team treated the schedule as something to be proved, not assumed. Each item was checked against the adjustment report, site inspection records, and comparable market pricing.
This is where Xu Xiaoxiang's litigation experience mattered. In maritime claims, large schedules can conceal charges that are only loosely connected to the casualty. Information asymmetry often works in the claimant's favor unless the documents are tested carefully. Xu's method was meticulous: trace the contractual basis, confirm actual payment, and test causation for every item. That disciplined review exposed the parts of the claim that could not withstand scrutiny:
Repairs: The foreign shipowner arranged the repairs on its own terms, at prices well above the market for comparable vessels. Using settlement rates from similar repair work, the team reduced this head of claim by about 50%.
Agency fees: The foreign shipowner used an out-of-town agent, but several charges were unsupported by payment records or evidence of necessity. The team accepted only the necessary costs for statutory surveyors boarding and leaving the vessel, reducing this category by more than 80%.
Classification society survey fees: These fees arose during ordinary operations because the foreign shipowner had delayed repairs. They did not flow directly from the collision and were excluded in full.
Third-party survey fees: The foreign shipowner unilaterally instructed a third party to inspect the Chinese vessel. The charge exceeded the Chinese vessel's own repair cost, was not a statutory survey expense, and was commercially unreasonable. It too was excluded in full.
After that review, the inflated portion of the claim was sharply reduced. The exercise showed the value of rigorous evidence review and a commercially grounded approach to the reasonableness of maritime losses.
IV. Counterclaim: Defending by Going on the Offensive
Guosong did not limit the strategy to defense. The team filed a counterclaim for the Chinese party, requiring the foreign shipowner to compensate the Chinese side in line with its share of fault. The counterclaim covered repair costs and loss of operating income while the vessel was out of service. Using the daily hire rate under the Monthly Transportation Contract signed before the casualty, the lawyers calculated the loss of earnings and sought to hold the foreign shipowner liable for no less than 45% of the compensation. The counterclaim protected the client's direct economic losses and, just as importantly, reduced the other side's room to negotiate from a position of strength.
V. Professional Judgment and Teamwork: The Best Response to a High-Value Maritime Claim
The proceedings are ongoing, and the court has yet to determine the final allocation of liability and damages. Still, the early work has produced a real breakthrough: the claim has fallen from RMB 20 million to RMB 11 million, and the client's position has improved materially. The result came from more than citing the right legal provisions. It came from two lawyers bringing different strengths to the same problem. Wang Yubao's seafaring background helped expose the other side's navigational failings and build the liability defense on technical facts. Xu Xiaoxiang's extensive courtroom experience and exacting document review helped dismantle inflated quantum items one by one. Law, seamanship, evidence, and teamwork came together to break through the other side's technical narrative.
Guosong's practice team will continue to support shipping companies with professional, practical, and efficient legal services, protecting both vessel safety and commercial value.
