Spiliada Maritime Corpn v Cansulex Ltd, The Spiliada

Transcription

1 Page 1 Spiliada Maritime Corpn v Cansulex, The Spiliada [1987] AC 460, [1986] 3 All ER 843, [1986] 3 WLR 972, [1987] 1 Lloyd's Rep 1, 130 Sol Jo 925, [1987] LS Gaz R 113, [1986] NLJ Rep 1137, [1987] LRC (Comm) 356 Court: HL Judgment Date: 19/11/1986 Catchwords & Digest PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS - SERVICE OF PROCESS - SERVICE OUT OF THE JURISDICTION - CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN SERVICE OUT OF THE JURISDICTION ALLOWED - ACTIONS ON CONTRACTS - CONTRACT BY ITS TERMS OR BY IMPLICATION TO BE GOVERNED BY ENGLISH LAW - SERVICE OF PROCESS -- SERVICE OUTSIDE JURISDICTION -- ACTION UNDER CONTRACTS GOVERNED BY ENGLISH LAW Plaintiffs unconnected with England obtained leave under RSC Ord 11 to serve a writ outside the jurisdiction on defendants also unconnected with England. The defendants' application to set aside or stay the proceedings was refused at first instance. This was largely because they were already defendants to similar proceedings in England which, although brought by different plaintiffs, raised similar factual and legal issues and involved the same lawyers and experts on each side. The defendants successfully appealed against that refusal. On further appeal by the plaintiffs: Held: (i) Where a defendant had been served within England, so that jurisdiction had been founded as of right, he could apply to the court to exercise its discretion to stay the proceedings on the ground known as forum non-conveniens. If he did, the burden was on him to satisfy the court that there was another forum having jurisdiction which was the "appropriate forum" for the action because in it the case could be tried more suitably for the interests of all the parties and for the ends of justice. In discharging this burden, he had to satisfy the court not merely that England was not the natural or appropriate forum, but that another forum was actually more appropriate. In this context, the court had to look for connecting factors pointing to another forum. Those factors would include not only matters of convenience, eg availability of witnesses, but also matters like the law governing the transaction or the parties' places of residence or business. If the court concluded that there was no forum more appropriate for trial of the action, it would normally refuse a stay. If it concluded that there was, it would normally grant a stay, unless the plaintiff showed that there were special circumstances by reason of which justice required that a stay should nevertheless not be granted. (ii) In cases where leave for service outside the jurisdiction under Ord 11 was concerned, similar considerations applied. However, in such cases the burden rested on the plaintiff, not on the defendant; the plaintiff had to show why a foreign defendant should be required to appear before an English court. A more fundamental distinction was that in Ord 11 cases the plaintiff was seeking to persuade the court to exercise its discretionary power to permit service on the defendant outside the jurisdiction. Special regard also had to be had to the fact that the jurisdiction under Ord 11 might be exorbitant. (iii) In the instant case, the judge at first instance had applied the correct principles. He had been entitled to attach the weight he did to the fact that in London experienced teams of lawyers and experts with knowledge of the issues involved were already available to both sides. The solution of disputes concerning the respective merits of trial in England or abroad was pre-eminently a matter for him. The instant case was not appropriate for interference with the exercise of his discretion, and the plaintiffs' appeal against the decision of the appellate court would be allowed. Case History

2 Page 2 Annotations Case Name Citations Court Date -- Reversing Spiliada Maritime Corpn v Cansulex, The Spiliada Spiliada Maritime Corpn v Cansulex, The Spiliada [1987] AC 460, [1986] 3 All ER 843, [1986] 3 WLR 972, [1987] 1 Lloyd's Rep 1, 130 Sol Jo 925, [1987] LS Gaz R 113, [1986] NLJ Rep 1137, [1987] LRC (Comm) 356 [1985] 2 Lloyd's Rep 116, [1985] LS Gaz R 1416 HL 19/11/1986 CA 07/03/1985 Cases referring to this case Annotations: All CasesCourt: ALL COURTS Sort by: Judgment Date (Latest First) Treatment Case Name Citations Court Date Mengiste v Endowment Fund for the Rehabilitation of Tigray VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp Actavis Group HF v Eli Lilly; Medis EHF v Eli Lilly OJSC TNK-BP Holding v Beppler & Jacobson Abdulla v Birmingham City Council AB v CB Spencer-Churchill v Faggionato Fine Arts VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corp Moloobhoy v Kanani [2013] EWHC 599 (Ch), [2013] All ER (D) 230 (Mar) [2013] UKSC 5, [2013] 2 WLR 398, [2013] All ER (D) 47 (Feb) [2012] EWHC 3316 (Pat), [2012] All ER (D) 347 (Nov) [2012] EWHC 3286 (Ch), [2012] All ER (D) 232 (Nov) [2012] UKSC 47, [2013] 1 All ER 649, [2012] ICR 1419, [2012] NLJR 1377, (2012) Times, 05 November, [2012] All ER (D) 229 (Oct) [2012] EWHC 3841 (Fam), [2013] All ER (D) 65 (Jan) [2012] EWHC 2318 (Ch), [2012] All ER (D) 55 (Aug) [2012] EWCA Civ 808, [2012] 2 Lloyd's Rep 313, [2012] 2 BCLC 437, [2012] All ER (D) 147 (Jun) [2012] EWHC 1670 (Comm), [2012] All ER (D) 170 (Jun) Ch D 22/03/2013 SC 06/02/2013 Patent 27/11/2012 Ch D 20/11/2012 SC 24/10/2012 Fam D 10/10/2012 Ch D 07/08/2012 CA 20/06/ /06/2012 Innovia Films v [2012] EWHC 790 (Pat), Patent 30/03/2012

3 Page 3 Frito-Lay North America Inc Abdulla v Birmingham City Council Harty v Sabre International Security Mujur Bakat SDN BHD v Uni. Asia General Insurance Berhad Bhamal v Bhamal Investment CJSC v Krygyz Mobil Tel ; Altimo Holdings and Investment v same; CP-Crédit Privé SA v same; Fellowes International Holdings v same Ashby v Birmingham City Council Governor & Company of the Bank of Ireland v State Bank of India Pacific International Sports Clubs v Soccer Marketing International AstraZeneca UK v Albemarle International Corp JKN v JCN [2012] RPC 557, [2012] All ER (D) 98 (Jul) [2011] EWCA Civ 1412, [2012] 2 All ER 591, [2012] ICR 20, [2012] IRLR 116, [2011] NLJR 1706, 155 Sol Jo (no 46) 31, [2011] All ER (D) 210 (Nov) [2011] EWHC 852 (QB), [2011] All ER (D) 42 (Apr) [2011] EWHC 643 (Comm), [2011] Lloyd's Rep IR 465, [2011] NLJR 475, [2011] All ER (D) 220 (Mar) [2011] EWHC 1092 (Ch), [2011] All ER (D) 74 (May) [2011] UKPC 7, [2011] 4 All ER 1027, [2012] 1 WLR 1804, [2012] 1 All ER (Comm) 319, [2011] 5 LRC 746, [2011] All ER (D) 144 (Mar) [2011] EWHC 424 (QB), [2011] 4 All ER 182, [2012] ICR 1, [2011] IRLR 473, [2011] NLJR 405, (2011) Times, 18 March, [2011] All ER (D) 48 (Mar) [2011] NIQB 22, [2011] NI 169 [2010] EWCA Civ 753, [2010] All ER (D) 27 (Jul) [2010] EWHC 1028 (Comm), [2011] 1 All ER (Comm) 510, [2010] 2 Lloyd's Rep 61, [2010] All ER (D) 117 (May) [2010] EWHC 843 (Fam), [2011] 2 FCR 33, [2011] 1 FLR 826, [2010] Fam Law 796, CA 29/11/2011 QBD 05/04/ /03/2011 Ch D 10/03/2011 PC 10/03/2011 QBD 03/03/2011 NI QBD 09/02/2011 CA 02/07/ /05/2010 Fam D 19/04/2010

4 Page 4 Dicta of Lord Goff of Chieveley Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc FR Lurssen Werft GmbH & Co KG v Halle Cherney v Deripaska Catalyst Investment Group v Lewinsohn; ARM Asset- Backed Securities SA v Lewinsohn Pacific International Sports Clubs v Soccer Marketing International Sharab v Al-Saud Novus Aviation v Onur Air Tasimacilik AS Agbaje v Agbaje Middle Eastern Oil LLC v National Bank of Abu Dhabi Alberta Inc v Katanga Mining [2010] All ER (D) 69 (May) [2009] EWHC 3069 (Comm), [2010] 1 All ER (Comm) 808, [2009] All ER (D) 58 (Dec) [2009] EWHC 2607 (Comm), [2010] Bus LR D55, [2010] 2 Lloyd's Rep 20, [2009] All ER (D) 33 (Nov) [2009] EWCA Civ 849, [2010] 2 All ER (Comm) 456, [2009] NLJR 1138, (2009) Times, 13 October, [2009] All ER (D) 02 (Aug) [2009] EWHC 1964 (Ch), [2010] Ch 218, [2010] 2 WLR 839, [2010] 1 All ER (Comm) 751, [2010] Bus LR 350, [2009] All ER (D) 34 (Aug) [2009] EWHC 1839 (Ch), [2009] All ER (D) 173 (Aug) [2009] EWCA Civ 353, [2009] 2 Lloyd's Rep 160, [2009] All ER (D) 232 (Apr) [2009] EWCA Civ 122, [2009] 1 Lloyd's Rep 576, [2009] All ER (D) 275 (Feb) [2009] EWCA Civ 1, [2010] 1 AC 628, [2009] 3 WLR 835, [2009] 1 FCR 411, [2009] 1 FLR 987, [2009] Fam Law 383, [2009] All ER (D) 130 (Jan) [2008] EWHC 2895 (Comm), [2009] 1 Lloyd's Rep 251, [2008] All ER (D) 285 (Nov) [2008] EWHC 2679 (Comm), [2009] 1 BCLC 189, [2008] All ER (D) 61 (Nov) 01/12/ /10/2009 CA 31/07/2009 Ch D 31/07/2009 Ch D 24/07/2009 CA 30/04/2009 CA 27/02/2009 CA 20/01/ /11/ /11/2008

5 Page 5 RAB v MIB CIMB Bank Berhad v Dresdner Kleinwort Glaxo Group v Genentech Inc Reeves v Sprecher Murakami (Executrix of the estate of Takashi Murakami Suroso, decd) v Wiryadi Rickshaw Investments v Baron von Uexkull Pfizer v Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma Co Dornoch v Mauritius Union Assurance Co Bacardi v Rente Investments Dornoch v Mauritius Union Assurance Co Ivax Pharmaceuticals UK v Akzo Nobel NV Rainbow Joy, The Limit (No 3) v PDV Insurance Co [2008] CSIH 52, [2009] 1 FLR 602, [2008] Fam Law 1089, 2009 SC 58, 2009 SLT 355 [2008] SGCA 36, [2009] 2 LRC 558 [2008] FSR 459, [2008] Bus LR 888, [2008] EW- CA Civ 23, (2008) Times, 21 February, [2008] All ER (D) 282 (Jan) [2007] EWHC 117 (Ch), [2007] 2 BCLC 614, [2008] BCC 49, [2007] All ER (D) 41 (Feb) [2008] SGCA 44, [2009] 2 LRC 731 [2006] SGHC 39, [2007] 3 LRC 223 [2006] EWHC 1424 (Ch), 150 Sol Jo LB 855, [2006] All ER (D) 172 (Jun) [2006] EWCA Civ 389, [2006] 2 All ER (Comm) 385, [2006] 2 Lloyd's Rep 475, [2006] Lloyd's Rep IR 786, [2006] All ER (D) 122 (Apr) (2005) 68 WIR 214 [2005] EWHC 1887 (Comm), [2006] Lloyd's Rep IR 127, [2005] 35 LS Gaz R 42, [2005] All ER (D) 83 (Aug) [2005] EWHC 2658 (Ch), [2006] FSR 888, [2005] All ER (D) 356 (Jul) [2005] SGCA 36, [2006] 2 LRC 320 [2005] EWCA Civ 383, [2005] 2 All ER (Comm) 347, [2005] Lloyd's Rep IH 09/09/2008 Sing CA 08/08/2008 CA 31/01/2008 Ch D 05/02/2007 Sing CA 12/11/2006 Sing CA 03/11/2006 Ch D 16/06/2006 CA 10/04/2006 Berm SC 22/12/2005 QBD 19/08/2005 Patent 25/07/2005 CA 20/07/2005 CA 11/04/2005

6 Page 6 Followed M v T Banks v CGU Insurance plc Inter-Tel Inc v Ocis plc DSM Anti-Infectives BV v Smithkline Beecham plc Lennon v Scottish Daily Record and Sunday Mail Gheewala v Hindocha Limit (No 3) v PDV Insurance Co Armstrong International v Deutsche Bank Securities Inc R (on the application of Majead) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal IR 552, (2005) Times, 14 April, [2005] All ER (D) 72 (Apr) [2005] EWHC 79 (Fam), [2005] All ER (D) 429 (Mar) Fam D 09/03/ SCLR 556 OH 05/11/2004 [2004] EWHC 2269 (QB), [2004] All ER (D) 142 (Oct) [2004] EWHC 1309 (Ch), [2004] All ER (D) 382 (May) [2004] EWHC 359 (QB), [2004] All ER (D) 34 (Mar) [2003] UKPC 77, 147 Sol Jo LB 1395, [2004] 2 LRC 732, [2003] All ER (D) 291 (Nov) [2003] EWHC 2632 (Comm), [2003] All ER (D) 107 (Nov) [2003] All ER (D) 195 (Jul) [2003] EWCA Civ 615, [2003] 23 LS Gaz R 38, (2003) Times, 24 April, 147 Sol Jo LB 539, [2003] All ER (D) 11 (Apr) QBD 12/10/2004 Ch D 25/05/2004 QBD 02/03/2004 PC 20/11/ /11/2003 QBD 11/07/2003 CA 01/04/2003 McCarthy v Pillay [2003] 1 IR 592 Ir SC 24/03/2003 Morin v Bonhams & Brooks [2003] EWHC 467 (Comm), [2003] 2 All ER (Comm) 36, [2003] All ER (D) 267 (Mar) Koonmen v Bender (2002) 6 ITELR 568 Koonmen v Bender (2002) 5 ITELR 247 Chellaram v Chellaram (No 2) Regie National des Usines Renault SA v [2002] EWHC 632 (Ch), [2002] 3 All ER 17, 4 ITELR 729, [2002] All ER (D) 80 (Apr) [2002] HCA 10, [2002] 5 LRC 96 Jersey CA Jersey RC 18/03/ /11/ /07/2002 Ch D 16/04/2002 Aus HC 14/03/2002

7 Page 7 Followed Dicta of Lord Goff at Followed Zhang Lincoln National Life Insurance Co v Employers Reinsurance Corp Analog Devices BV v Zurich Insurance Co BFC Aircraft Sales and Leasing v The Ages Group LLP Groupama Insurance Co v Channel Islands Securities Burrows v Jamaica Private Power Co PT Hutan Domas Raya v Yue Xiu Enterprises (Holdings) Lubbe v Cape plc Berezovsky v Michaels, Glouchkov v Michaels Sinochem International Oil (London) Co v Mobil Sales and Supply Corp (Sinochem International Oil Co, third party) Chadha v Dow Jones & Co Inc Oriental Insurance Co v Bhavani Stores Pte Oriental Insurance Co v Bhavani Stores Pte Connelly v RTZ Corpn plc [2002] All ER (D) 47 (Feb) [2002] IESC 1, [2002] 1 IR 272 [2001] All ER (D) 203 (Dec) [2001] All ER (D) 458 (Nov) [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 374, [2002] Lloyd's Rep IR 466, [2001] All ER (D) 415 (Oct) 05/02/2002 Ir SC 24/01/ /12/ /11/ /10/2001 [2002] 1 LRC 1 Sing CA 20/01/2001 [2000] 4 All ER 268, [2000] 1 WLR 1545, [2000] 2 Lloyd's Rep 383, 144 Sol Jo LB 250, [2000] 5 LRC 605 [2000] 2 All ER 986, [2000] 1 WLR 1004, [2000] IP & T 1136, [2000] EMLR 643, [2000] All ER (D) 643 [2000] 1 All ER (Comm) 758, [2000] 1 Lloyd's Rep 670 [1999] 23 LS Gaz R 34, [1999] EMLR 724, [1999] All ER (D) 495 HL 20/07/2000 HL 11/05/ /04/2000 CA 14/05/1999 [2000] 1 LRC 47 Sing CA 29/10/1997 [2000] 1 LRC 47 Sing CA 29/10/1997 [1998] AC 854, [1997] 4 All ER 335, [1997] 3 WLR 373, [1997] NLJR 1346 HL 24/07/1997 Followed S v S (matrimonial [1997] 1 WLR 1200, Fam D 07/03/1997

8 Page 8 dictum Lord Goff of Chieveley Followed dictum Lord Goff dictum Lord Templeman proceedings: appropriate forum) Butler v Butler McCartan Turkington and Breen (a firm) v Lord St Oswald Citi-March v Neptune Orient Lines Connelly v RTZ Corpn plc Societe Commerciale de Reassurance v Eras International (No 2) Irish Shipping v Commercial Union Assurance Co plc, The Irish Rowan Arab Monetary Fund v Hashim (No 3) Harrods (Buenos Aires) (No 2), Re Australian Commercial Research and Development v ANZ Mc- Caughan Merchant Bank Holmes v Holmes De Dampierre v De Dampierre [1997] 3 FCR 272, [1997] 15 LS Gaz R 27, 141 Sol Jo LB 92 [1997] 2 All ER 822, [1998] 1 WLR 1208, [1997] 2 FCR 300, [1997] 2 FLR 311, [1997] Fam Law 603, [1997] 12 LS Gaz R 22, [1997] NLJR 525, 141 Sol Jo LB 57 CA 19/02/1997 [1996] NI 65 NI QBD 02/05/1996 [1996] 2 All ER 545, [1996] 1 WLR 1367, [1997] 1 Lloyd's Rep 72 [1996] QB 361, [1996] 1 All ER 500, [1996] 2 WLR 251, [1995] 37 LS Gaz R 24, 139 Sol Jo LB 213 [1995] 2 All ER 278 [1991] 2 QB 206, [1989] 3 All ER 853, [1990] 2 WLR 117, [1989] 2 Lloyd's Rep 144, 134 Sol Jo 426, [1990] 5 LS Gaz R 39 [1991] 2 AC 114, [1990] 1 All ER 685, [1990] 3 WLR 139, [1990] 14 LS Gaz R 42 QBD 29/01/1996 CA 18/08/ /12/1993 CA circa 1991 Ch D circa 1991 [1991] 4 All ER 348 CA circa 1991 [1989] 3 All ER 65 Ch D circa 1989 [1989] Fam 47, [1989] 3 All ER 786, [1989] 3 WLR 302, [1990] FCR 157, [1989] 2 FLR 364, [1989] Fam Law 470 [1988] AC 92, [1987] 2 All ER 1, [1987] 2 WLR 1006, [1987] 2 FLR 300, CA circa 1989 HL 02/07/1987

9 Page 9 Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Kui Jak [1987] Fam Law 418, 131 Sol Jo 471, [1987] LS Gaz R 1493, [1987] NLJ Rep 341 [1987] AC 871, [1987] 3 All ER 510, [1987] 3 WLR 59, 131 Sol Jo 842, [1987] LS Gaz R 2048 PC 14/05/1987 Cases considered by this case Annotations: All CasesCourt: ALL COURTS Sort by: Judgment Date (Latest First) Treatment Case Name Citations Court Date Abidin Daver, The Amin Rasheed Shipping Corpn v Kuwait Insurance Co, The Al Wahab MacShannon v Rockware Glass Atlantic Star, The, Motor Vessel Atlantic Star (Owners) v Motor Vessel Bona Spes (Owners) [1984] AC 398, [1984] 1 All ER 470, [1984] 2 WLR 196, [1984] 1 Lloyd's Rep 339, 128 Sol Jo 99 [1984] AC 50, [1983] 2 All ER 884, [1983] 3 WLR 241, [1983] 2 Lloyd's Rep 365, 127 Sol Jo 492 [1978] AC 795, [1978] 1 All ER 625, [1978] 2 WLR 362, 122 Sol Jo 81 [1974] AC 436, [1973] 2 All ER 175, [1973] 2 WLR 795, [1973] 2 Lloyd's Rep 197, 117 Sol Jo 371 HL 26/01/1984 HL 07/07/1983 HL 26/01/1978 HL 10/04/1973