In 2025, China’s maritime courts have strengthened maritime adjudication to support the building of China into a maritime power, coordinating the development of domestic and foreign-related rule of law, and serving high-level opening-up and the high-quality development of the maritime economy, while placing emphasis on protecting seafarers’ rights and interests.
To give full play to the exemplary role of representative cases and demonstrate the important role of maritime adjudication in resolving international maritime disputes, maintaining the order of maritime transportation, and promoting the high-quality development of the maritime economy, the Supreme People’s Court released a batch of typical cases of maritime adjudication of 2025 ahead of the Day of the Seafarer, which falls on June 25.
The typical cases show that courts prioritize people’s livelihoods and are committed to protecting seafarers’ labor rights in adjudication. Protecting seafarers’ rights and interests is not only a legal requirement and a matter of humanitarian concern, but also a cornerstone for the security of international shipping supply chains and navigation safety. It is essential for the high-quality development of the maritime economy. In these cases, the protection of seafarers’ labor rights was placed at the forefront, and judicial decisions were used to clarify the boundaries of rights and safeguard legitimate interests.
In one case involving a dispute over a seafarer’s labor contract, the court invalidated the shipowner’s practice of requiring seafarers to sign commitment letters waiving their statutory maritime liens for unpaid wages. The court made it clear that such standard-form commitments could not exclude the effect of statutory priority rights. The judgment strengthened shipowners’ legal responsibilities, prevented them from abusing their dominant positions to infringe seafarers’ interests, and effectively protected seafarers' statutory priority rights to wage claims, providing clear judicial guidance for similar disputes.
Another case involved foreign parties and arose after a foreign shipowner’s failure to pay seafarers’ wages and related expenses. Based on its confidence in China’s maritime justice system, the foreign ship management company applied to a Chinese maritime court for the arrest of the vessel involved. Taking the ship arrest as an opportunity, the maritime court actively guided the parties to negotiate a settlement of the underlying dispute. Both parties agreed to waive arbitration in London, and within only nine days the court facilitated a settlement under which the shipowner paid the outstanding seafarers’ wages. The efficient resolution of the dispute enabled both Chinese and foreign seafarers to work in a more orderly and regulated international shipping environment.
The released cases also demonstrate the professional and efficient handling of international maritime disputes, highlighting courts’ efforts in building China into a preferred seat for resolving international maritime disputes. The resolution of such disputes often involves complex procedures, high costs, and the application of foreign laws, international conventions, and international practices. Judicial expertise in maritime affairs is an important criterion for a preferred destination for resolving international maritime disputes.
One case concerned a general average dispute involving parties from multiple countries, including Uruguay, Argentina, and the United States. In addressing issues related to vessel repairs in the determination of general average, the maritime court accurately applied the York-Antwerp Rules 1994. The court held that the shipowner had fulfilled its duty of reasonable care by considering various repair plans, taking relevant factors into account, and informing cargo interests before selecting a temporary repair plan. The failure to complete the repairs resulted from objective factors such as weather conditions that were beyond the shipowner’s reasonable expectations at the time of decision-making. Therefore, the court found that the shipowner was not negligent in choosing the repair plan. The case serves as a reference for resolving other general average disputes and reflects the professional capacity of Chinese maritime courts in handling complex international maritime disputes.
Another case concerned an application for recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award rendered in Hong Kong. The maritime court clarified the boundaries between regional judicial assistance and bankruptcy proceedings, upheld the validity and enforceability of the Hong Kong arbitral award in accordance with the law, and facilitated the efficient resolution of cross-border disputes, fostering a stable, predictable, and law-based business environment.
In a separate case, the maritime court developed the combined approach of “preservation measures plus mediation”. After ordering the freezing of the respondent’s bank deposits in accordance with the law, the maritime court actively explored diversified dispute resolution mechanisms, explained the legal consequences to the parties, built a platform for negotiations. The parties reached a settlement agreement efficiently. This provides an approach based on Chinese judicial practice for resolving international maritime disputes and contributes to the development of China as a preferred seat for maritime dispute resolution.
The typical cases also highlight the role of maritime adjudication in safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises in accordance with the law.
In response to the abuse of “long-arm jurisdiction” and the imposition of unilateral sanctions by some countries, which disrupt normal international economic and trade order and harm the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises, maritime courts have, in line with the requirements of developing foreign-related rule of law, relied on judicial decisions to define clear legal boundaries.
One of the cases involved an overseas shipping enterprise that refused to issue bills of lading without justification and returned cargo unilaterally on the grounds of another country’s unilateral sanctions. The company attempted to evade contractual obligations by citing unlawful extraterritorial measures. The maritime court, by accurately applying Article 12 of the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law of the People’s Republic of China, blocked the legal effect of such unlawful extraterritorial unilateral sanctions and ordered the overseas shipping enterprise to bear full liability for breach of contract.
This case marks the first time that a Chinese court has explicitly affirmed, through a judgment, the mandatory application of the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law. The judgment effectively safeguarded the order of international maritime cargo transportation and demonstrated the firm commitment of China's maritime courts to protecting the country's sovereignty, security, and development interests.
