Atlantic Star v. Bona Spes</head> <body> <font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><a name="PL436"></a><a name="TERM0"></a> <table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>436 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><br><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="40%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="6%"></td><td width="88%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://www.justis.com/pdf2/lrpdf/ELR/S7440/S7440016.PDF" target="_blank">Original Printed Version (PDF)</a></font></p></td><td width="6%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table><br> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman">[HOUSE OF LORDS] </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">THE ATLANTIC STAR </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="50%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="5%"></td><td width="90%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">ATLANTIC STAR (OWNERS) </font></p></td><td width="5%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="50%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="5%"></td><td width="90%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">APPELLANTS </font></p></td><td width="5%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">AND </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="50%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="5%"></td><td width="90%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">BONA SPES (OWNER) </font></p></td><td width="5%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="50%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="5%"></td><td width="90%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">RESPONDENT </font></p></td><td width="5%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br> <table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="50%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="5%"></td><td width="90%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">1973 Feb. 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 22; April 10 </font></p></td><td width="5%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="50%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="5%"></td><td width="90%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Kilbrandon </font></p></td><td width="5%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><i>Practice - Stay of proceedings - Admiralty - Collision in Belgian waters involving Dutch and Belgian vessels - Report by surveyor appointed by Belgian Commercial Court - Multiple claims against Dutch owners begun in Antwerp court - Action in rem by one claimant started in English Admiralty Court - Motion to stay English action - Antwerp most appropriate forum - Whether plaintiff entitled to bring action in forum of his choice - International Convention on Certain Rules Concerning Civil Jurisdiction in Matters of Collision, art. 1 (1) (2) (3) (Brussels, May 10, 1952)<a name="L1"></a><a href="#FS11"><sup>1</sup></a> </i></font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><i>Ships' Names - Atlantic Star </i></font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p style="text-indent: 3%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman">In January 1970 the Dutch container vessel AS, when attempting in sudden dense fog and without the help of tugs to enter a lock in Belgian river waters, collided with the Dutch-owned barge <i>B</i> lying moored outside a Belgian barge against the quay wall. Both barges were sunk with their cargoes, two men were drowned, and port installations were damaged. The two barge owners applied to the Antwerp Commercial Court for the appointment of a court surveyor who reported on the circumstances and causes of the collision in February 1971. The trend of his report was that the collision was due to the difficulties caused by sudden fog. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br> <a name="FS11"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman">1 See post, p. 472C-E. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL437"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>437 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b></b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table> </font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman">The owners of the Belgian barge and the insurers began actions in the Antwerp court; but in June 1971, when the AS was due at Liverpool, the owner of the Dutch barge B elected to begin an action in rem in the Admiralty Court in England against the AS. Her owners, to avoid arrest, accepted service of the writ, entered a conditional appearance, arranged security in respect of the claim, and in July 1971 issued a notice of motion to stay the action. Before the motion was heard four actions were pending in the Antwerp court and a fifth was anticipated. In January 1972 the Dutch barge owner initiated proceedings in Antwerp against the AS owners solely to preserve the Belgian time limit if his English action were stayed; but at the hearing before Brandon J. in March 1972 he undertook to discontinue the Belgian action if the English action were allowed to proceed. Brandon J., though finding that for five practical reasons the Antwerp court was the more appropriate forum for the trial, refused the shy in the exercise of hits discretion and on the established principles on the ground that to stay it would deprive the plaintiff of an advantage which he reasonably believed the trial of his claim in England would give him, and that the defendants had not shown that the inconvenience to them would be oppressive. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed that decision. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p style="text-indent: 3%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman">The defendants appealed:- </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p style="text-indent: 3%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><i>Held,</i> allowing the appeal (Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest and Lord Simon of Glaisdale dissenting), (1) that although the criterion for staying proceedings was whether the continuance of the action would be "vexatious" or "oppressive" to the defendant, those words were pointers rather than boundary marks, which illustrated but did not confine the courts' general jurisdiction; that in applying the test it was a pertinent consideration that a plaintiff should not lightly be denied the right to sue in an English court, if jurisdiction was rightly founded, even in actions between foreigners, and that the court must take into account (i) any advantage to the plaintiff, (ii) any disadvantage to the defendant. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p style="text-indent: 3%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman">(2) That the fact that proceedings related to the Admiralty jurisdiction, whilst a potent factor in a plaintiff's favour especially where the proceedings were in rem, was not conclusive in every case for the right to bring an action in rem in England was by statute conferred in the same terms as the right to bring any other type of action, namely, by conferring on the court a residual right to decline to exercise its jurisdiction. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p style="text-indent: 3%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman">(3) That applying the above criterion to the circumstances of the present case the defendants had clearly shown that they ought not to be required to litigate here as well as in Antwerp, and that accordingly the English action would be stayed. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p style="text-indent: 3%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman">Observations of Scott L.J. in <a name="L2"></a>St. Pierre v. South American Stores (Gath & Chaves) Ltd. [1936] 1 K.B. 382, 398, C.A. and <a name="L3"></a><i>SociŽtŽ du Gaz de Paris v. La SociŽtŽ Anonyme de Navigation "Les Armateurs Franais,"</i> 1926 S.C.(H.L.) 13, H.L.(Sc.) considered. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p style="text-indent: 3%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"> <a name="L4"></a>Decision of the Court of Appeal [1973] Q.B. 364; [1972] 3 W.L.R. 746; [1972] 3 All E.R. 705 reversed. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The following cases are referred to in their Lordships' opinions: </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L5"></a><i>Adams v. Adams (Attorney-General intervening)</i> [1971] P. 188; [1970] 3 W.L.R. 934; [1970] 3 All E.R. 572. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL438"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>438 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b></b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table> </font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L6"></a><i>Arantzazu Mendi, The</i> [1939] A.C. 256; [1939] 1 All E.R. 719, H.L.(E.). </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L7"></a><i>Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. Kepner</i> (1941) 314 U.S. 44. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L8"></a><i>Bold Buccleugh, The</i> (1851) 7 Moo.P.C.C. 267, P.C. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L9"></a><i>Canada Malting Co. Ltd. v. Paterson Steamships Ltd.</i> (1932) 285 U.S. 413. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L10"></a><i>Carron Iron Co. v. Maclaren</i> (1855) 5 H.L.Cas. 416, H.L.(E.). </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L11"></a><i>Chaparral, The</i> [1972] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 315. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L12"></a><i>Christiansborg, The</i> (1885) 10 P.D. 141, C.A. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L13"></a><i>Currie v. M'Knight</i> [1897] A.C. 97, H.L.(Sc.). </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L14"></a><i>Devine v. Cementation Co. Ltd.</i> [1963] N.I. 65. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L15"></a><i>Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert doing business as Gilbert Storage & Transfer Co.</i> (1947) 330 U.S. 501. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L16"></a><i>Hyman v. Helm</i> (1883) 24 Ch.D. 531, C.A. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L17"></a><i>Ionian Bank Ltd. v. Couvreur</i> [1969] 1 W.L.R. 781; [1969] 2 All E.R. 651, C.A. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L18"></a><i>Janera, The</i> [1928] P. 55. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L19"></a><i>Logan v. Bank of Scotland (No. 2)</i> [1906] 1 K.B. 141, C.A. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L20"></a><i>London, The</i> [1931] P. 14. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L21"></a><i>Lucile Bloomfield, The</i> [1964] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 324. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L22"></a><i>McHenry v. Lewis</i> (1882) 21 Ch.D. 202; 22 Ch.D. 397, C.A. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L23"></a><i>Madrid, The</i> [1937] P. 40; [1937] 1 All E.R. 216. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L24"></a><i>Martin v. Stopford-Blair's Executors</i> (1879) 7 R. 329. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L25"></a><i>Merchant Prince, The</i> [1892] P. 179, C.A. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L26"></a><i>Metropolitan Bank Ltd. v. Pooley</i> (1885) 10 App.Cas. 210, H.L.(E.). </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L27"></a><i>Mobil Tankers Co. S.A. v. Mene Grande Oil Co.</i> (1966) 363 F. 2d 611. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L28"></a><i>Manatee Urbasa, The</i> [1953] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 587. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L29"></a><i>Norton's Settlement, In re</i> [1908] 1 Ch. 471, C.A. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L30"></a><i>Peruvian Guano Co. v. Bockwoldt</i> (1883) 23 Ch.D. 225, C.A. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L31"></a><i>Quo Vadis, The</i> [1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 425. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L32"></a><i>Reinbeck, The</i> (1889) 6 Asp.M.L.C. 366, C.A. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L33"></a><i>Ripon City, The</i> [1897] P. 226. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L34"></a><i>St. Pierre v. South American Stores (Gath & Chaves) Ltd.</i> [1936] 1 K.B. 382, C.A. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L35"></a><i>Sheaf Steamship Co. Ltd. v. Company Transmediterranea,</i> 1930 S.C. 660. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L36"></a><i>Sim v. Robinow</i> (1892) 19 R. 665. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L37"></a><i>SociŽtŽ du Gaz de Paris v. La SociŽtŽ Anonyme de Navigation "Les Armateurs Franais,"</i> 1926 S.C.(H.L.) 13, H.L.(Sc.). </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L38"></a><i>Soya Margareta, The</i> [1961] 1 W.L.R. 709; [1960] 2 All E.R. 756. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L39"></a><i>Telford Panel & Engineering Works Pty. Ltd. v. Elder Smith Goldsbrough Mort Ltd.</i> [1969] V.R. 193. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L40"></a><i>Thornton v. Thornton</i> (1886) 11 P.D. 176, C.A. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L41"></a><i>Tovarisch, The</i> [1930] P. 1, C.A. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L42"></a><i>Williamson v. North-Eastern Railway Co.</i> (1884) 11 R. 596. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The following additional cases were cited in argument: </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L43"></a><i>Anderson v. Thomas</i> [1935] 3 D.L.R. 286. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L44"></a><i>Banco, The</i> [1971] P. 137; [1971] 2 W.L.R. 335; [1971] 1 All E.R. 524, C.A. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L45"></a><i>Bank of America National Trust & Banking Association v. Poyet</i> [1955] 1 D.L.R. 680. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L46"></a><i>Birdie (Maharani of) v. Wildenstein</i> [1972] 2 Q.B. 283; [1972] 2 W.L.R. 1077; [1972] 2 All E.R. 689, C.A. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L47"></a><i>Bayley v. Edwards</i> (1792) 3 Swan. 703, P.C. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L48"></a><i>Boys v. Chaplin</i> [1971] A.C. 356; [1969] 3 W.L.R. 322; [1969] 2 All E.R. 1085, H.L.(E.). </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L49"></a><i>Bush by v. Monday</i> (1821) 5 Madd. 297. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL439"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>439 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b></b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table> </font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L50"></a><i>Chaney v. Murphy</i> (1948) 64 T.L.R. 489, C.A. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L51"></a><i>Clements v. Meekly</i> (1866) 4 M. 583. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L52"></a><i>Cox v. Mitchell</i> (1859) 7 C.B.N.S. 55. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L53"></a><i>Eleftheria, The</i> [1970] P. 94; [1969] 2 W.L.R. 1073; [1969] 2 All E.R. 641. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L54"></a><i>Ewing v. Orr Ewing</i> (1885) 10 App.Cas. 453, H.L.(Sc.). </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L55"></a><i>Fehmarn, The</i> [1958] 1 W.L.R. 159; [1958] 1 All E.R. 333, C.A. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L56"></a><i>Foster v. Vassall</i> (1747) 3 Atk. 587. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L57"></a><i>Glenluce, The</i> (1929) 34 Ll.L.Rep. 407. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L58"></a><i>Hartlepool, The</i> (1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 145. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L59"></a><i>Launchbury v. Morgans</i> [1973] A.C. 127; [1927] 2 W.L.R. 1217; [1972] 2 All E.R. 606, H.L.(E.). </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L60"></a><i>Machado v. Fontes</i> [1897] 2 Q.B. 231, C.A. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L61"></a><i>Marinero, The</i> [1955] P. 68; [1955] 2 W.L.R. 607; [1955] 1 All E.R. 676. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L62"></a><i>Milan, The</i> (1861) Lush. 388. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L63"></a><i>Rutt v. Metropolitan Underwriters (Australia) Ltd.</i> [1929] S.A.S.R. 426. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L64"></a><i>Sealey (orse. Callan) v. Callan</i> [1953] P. 135; [1953] 2 W.L.R. 910; [1953] 1 All E.R. 942. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L65"></a><i>SociŽtŽ GŽnŽrale de Paris v. Dreyfus Brothers</i> (1887) 37 Ch.D. 215, C.A. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L66"></a><i>Sparry's Case</i> (1591) 5 Co.Rep. 61a. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="7%"></td><td width="91%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L67"></a><i>Walsh v. Bishop of Lincoln</i> (1874) L.R. 4 A. & E. 242. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">APPEAL from the Court of Appeal. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">This was an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal (Lord Denning M.R., Phillimore and Cairns L.JJ.) dated July 27, 1972, affirming an order of Brandon J., dated March 7, 1972, dismissing the appellants' motion to stay or set aside an action in rem in the Admiralty Court commenced by the respondent, the owner of the motor vessel <i>Bona Spes,</i>against the appellants, the owners of the motor vessel <i>Atlantic Star,</i> on June 13, 1971, subject to the respondent's undertaking that he would discontinue his action against the appellants in Belgium as soon as possible. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">These proceedings arose as a result of a collision in dense fog on the night of January 27, 1970, between the Dutch motor vessel <i>Atlantic Star</i>and the Dutch motor barge <i>Bona Spes</i> in a channel of the River Schelde leading to one of the locks at Antwerp. <i>Bona Spes</i> was lying moored outside a Belgian dumb barge, <i>Hugo van der Goes,</i> which was moored to the quay on one side of the channel. As a result of the collision <i>Hugo van der Goes</i> was crushed between <i>Bona Spes</i> and the quay, and both barges sank with their cargoes. The skipper and a sailor on <i>Hugo van der Goes</i> were drowned. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">On January 29, 1970, the owners of <i>Hugo van der Goes</i> and on February 16, 1970, the respondent, the owner of <i>Bona Spes,</i> applied to the Commercial Court of Antwerp for the appointment of a court surveyor, according to the normal Belgian practice, to investigate the circumstances and causes of the collision. The surveyor appointed took statements from witnesses and collected various reports and documents. The parties concerned were represented by Belgian lawyers at the hearings before the surveyors. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">On January 12, 1971, the owners of <i>Hugo van der Goes</i> began an action against the appellants in the Commercial Court of Antwerp. In February 1971 the surveyor made his report which inclined to the view </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL440"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>440 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b></b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table> </font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">that the collision was caused by the difficulties inherent in the dense fog and the site of the collision and that <i>Atlantic Star</i> was not to blame. On May 25, 1971, Belgian insurers who had become liable to make payments to the dependants of the two deceased crew members of <i>Hugo van der Goes</i> exercised their rights of subrogation and claimed damages against the owners of <i>Atlantic Star</i> in the Commercial Court of Antwerp. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">On June 15, 1971, the respondent learnt that <i>Atlantic Star</i> was due in Liverpool and began an action in rem against the appellants in the Admiralty Court. To avoid arrest of the ship, the appellants accepted service of the writ and gave a guarantee of £80,000 for the claim. On July 1, 1971, the appellants entered a conditional appearance and on July 20, 1971, issued a notice of motion to set aside the writ or stay the action. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">On August 12, 1971, and on December 2, 1971, the owners of part of the cargo on <i>Hugo van der Goes</i> and the insurers of the cargo of <i>Bona Spes</i> respectively started proceedings against the appellants in the Commercial Court of Antwerp. At this time, therefore, there were four actions arising out of the collision in the Commercial Court of Antwerp. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">On January 21, 1972, the respondent began an action against the appellants in the Commercial Court of Antwerp. It was conceded that the respondent began this action only in order to preserve the time limit in case the action in the Admiralty Court should be stayed. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">On March 17, 1972, Brandon J. in the exercise of his discretion refused a stay and dismissed the appellants' motion. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed that decision. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><i>Robert Goff Q.C.</i> and <i>Michael Thomas</i> for the appellants. The question in issue is: if proceedings are commenced in England in a case where the English courts clearly have jurisdiction, but the dispute has otherwise no connection with England and there is another forum which has more to do with the case (which is freely available) and there are a number of proceedings pending in the other forum against the defendant in relation to the same subject matter, will the English court hear the proceedings or stay them? If the proceedings are not stayed, the evidence of witnesses, none of whom are in this country, will have to be given over again and there is a danger of conflicting decisions. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The issue can be approached from different points of view. From the plaintiff's point of view it may be said that he is entitled to bring proceedings here provided by so doing he does not obtain an undue advantage over the defendant, for example, by being able to bring undue pressure on the defendant to settle. From the defendant's side it may be said: true the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing jurisdiction in England, but where the defendant is only casually here, he would be gravely inconvenienced by the proceedings in England. There is a middle way: the court in deciding whether to grant a stay looks at the matter objectively in the interests of justice; it has to balance the interest of the parties. The objective interests of justice require that the case be tried by the forum with which it has the most connection. This is a general principle and is not confined to shipping cases. The appellants concede that there must be a clear balance in favour of the foreign forum before the English court will </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL441"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>441 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b></b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table> </font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">grant a stay. That is, the English court will only grant a stay if plainly there is a balance of convenience in favour of the foreign forum and the plaintiff will not suffer any grave injustice, some denial of principle relating to substantive law by the proceedings being brought in the foreign jurisdiction. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The appellants support the middle view. The majority of the English cases support the plaintiff's view, but most of them are consonant with the middle view. To revert to the facts of the instant case, there is no comparable English case in the books where there is such a multiplicity of causes pending in the foreign jurisdiction. So the House should recognise that the discretionary power of the English courts to grant a stay of proceedings should be exercised where England is a forum non convenience. The following matters should be regarded as providing guidance to the courts in the exercise of their discretion: (i) The interests of justice ordinarily require that an action should be tried in that forum which is the most appropriate to the case. (ii) For a stay to be granted, there must exist another forum that is clearly appropriate to the case: a slight balance in favour of a foreign forum where neither forum is particularly appropriate is not of itself sufficient to justify a stay. (iii) In deciding whether there is a forum which is more appropriate to the case, the courts consider all the circumstances that are special to the case, that is the place where the cause of action arose, the applicable law, the availability of witnesses, the connection of the parties with the place where the cause of action arose, and the saving of costs. (iv) Where an incident gives rise to several claims involving the same subject matter, the nature of those claims and the choice of forum of other claimants are circumstances which must also be considered and given particular weight, because it is undesirable that courts should appear to compete against one another to retain jurisdiction over the same subject matter with duplication of costs and the risk of conflicting decisions. (v) Where the plaintiff can show that it would be unjust to deprive him of his right of action in England, a stay may be refused even where a foreign forum is the most appropriate to the case. (vi) A stay may be refused if the plaintiff proves that he is unlikely to receive a fair trial in the foreign forum that is the most appropriate to the case, for example, because of political factors, or of deficiencies in the substantive law or remedies available there that would amount to a denial of justice. (vii) The fact that the plaintiff values his right of action in England more highly than his right of action in the most appropriate forum is not enough of itself to justify the refusal of a stay: to hold otherwise would, contrary to international committee, encourage "forum shopping" and would unfairly tilt the scales of justice in favour of plaintiffs. (viii) No factor should be regarded as conclusive, but all relevant factors should be weighed by the court in deciding whether a stay should be granted. (ix) The granting of a stay preserves the plaintiff's right of action in case it should subsequently appear that his claim cannot fairly be tried and remedied in the most appropriate forum. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">There is a difference in approach between the English courts on the one hand and the Scottish courts and the courts of the United States on the </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL442"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>442 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b></b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table> </font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">other. The English courts favour the plaintiffs view. The Scottish courts adopt the principle of forum non convenience and the American principle is similar to the Scottish. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The English approach is exemplified by the well known passage in the judgment of Scott L.J. in <a name="L68"></a><i>St. Pierre v. South American Stores (Gath & Chaves) Ltd.</i> [1936] 1 K.B. 382, which was recently cited and applied in <a name="L69"></a><i>Maharanee of Baroda v. Wildenstein</i> [1972] 2 Q.B. 283. Contrast these decisions with the decision of this House in the Scottish case of <a name="L70"></a><i>SociŽtŽ du Gaz de Paris v. La SociŽtŽ Anonyme de Navigation "Les Armateurs Franais,"</i> 1926 S.C.(H.L.) 13. It appears from the opinion of Lord Dunedin, at p. 18, that forum convenience does not mean "the convenient forum" but "appropriate forum." The Scottish court in deciding that question although it takes into account the interests of both parties, considers it from a wholly objective view. Compare the American cases of <a name="L71"></a><i>Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert</i> <i>doing business as Gilbert Storage & Transfer Co.</i> (1947) 330 U.S. 501 and <a name="L72"></a><i>Canada Malting Co. Ltd. v. Paterson Steamships Ltd.</i> (1932) 285 U.S. 413 which indicate that in Admiralty cases as in other cases, the courts of the United States would decline jurisdiction if they considered that there was a more appropriate jurisdiction. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Section 41 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 preserves the power of the courts to stay Proceedings which is part of its inherent power to control its own proceedings. R.S.C., Ord. 18, r. 19 is one application of this power. But the House is not precluded by statute or by rules of court from considering the present question as a question of common law. For an enumeration of some of the cases relating to the court's power to stay, see <i>The Supreme Court Practice</i> 1972, vol. 2, p. 918. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The Scottish and American approach ought to be recognised here. The matter should be stayed, not because the English court cannot try the case, but because it can, to use the language of Lord Dunedin in the <a name="L73"></a><i>SociŽtŽ du Gaz</i> case, 1926 S.C.(H.L.) 13 be more suitably tried in another jurisdiction. Suppose two Belgian motorists who have a collision in Belgium and one sues here because he considers his interests would be better served, clearly Belgium is the more appropriate forum. It is pertinent to observe that this type of example is considered by Lord Denning M.R. in the <a name="L74"></a><i>Baroda</i> case [1972] 2 Q.B. 283, who deals with it solely from the point of view of the appropriate forum. There are observations by the Lords of Appeal in <a name="L75"></a><i>Boys v. Chaplin</i> [1971] A.C. 356 discouraging forum shopping. It was the view of the majority of the House in that case that the decision in <a name="L76"></a><i>Machado v. Fontes</i> [1897] 2 Q.B. 231, which was a classic case of forum shopping, should be overruled. Forum shopping occurs both to where the plaintiff comes to the English court in order to obtain a remedy where none is available in alternative jurisdictions and also where he comes here in order to obtain a better remedy than that applied by a more appropriate court. The policy against forum shopping should apply here to the question of staying proceedings. Reliance is placed on <a name="L77"></a><i>Boys v. Chaplin</i> [1971] A.C. 356 for the proposition that English courts will discourage a foreign litigant coming to this country, with which the case has no connection, where there is obviously a more appropriate forum. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">An examination of the concept of the appropriate forum shows that </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL443"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>443 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b></b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table> </font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">there are a number of reasons for adopting it: (i) It is better for the parties themselves that the case should be tried in the appropriate forum because costs are likely to be saved. (ii) Witnesses are more likely to be compellable. (iii) The parties or either of them are nationals of the appropriate forum and the lawyers speak that language. (iv) The court is part of the political and legal system of the country to which the parties belong. (v) Generally speaking, the parties will have greater confidence in the courts of their own country. (vi) The judges are likely to speak the same language as the witnesses and the documents will be written in the language of the forum and the judges are better able to understand the local law, and moreover, they are likely to know the locus in quo and previous cases concerned with similar facts. (vii) In addition, there is the question of international committee. The discouraging of forum shopping is an aspect of international committee. Apart from this, forum shopping is unjust to defendants and if a plaintiff forum shops, the defendant should be entitled to a stay of proceedings. (viii) Where there are related actions pending in the court of the appropriate forum, the defendant is subject to a double trial and the risk of conflicting decisions which is of pertinent consideration on the matter of international committee. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">As to the reasons for adopting the Scottish rule: (i) It recognises and gives effect to the principle that a stay should be granted where for the interest of the parties and for the ends of justice the cause may more suitably be tried elsewhere. (ii) The English rule unduly favours the plaintiff, whereas the Scottish rule holds a balance between the parties. (iii) The Scottish rule discourages forum shopping. (iv) The Scottish rule reduces the possibility of competition with foreign courts. (v) The Scottish rule discounts the hearing of cases where the parties are by accident in Britain. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">On the facts of the present case Brandon J. has given cogent reasons why the Court of Antwerp is the more appropriate forum. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">As to the International Convention on Certain Rules Concerning Civil Jurisdiction in Matters of Collision, signed at Brussels, May 10, 1952, a distinction must be drawn between jurisdiction and grant of a stay. The deduction drawn by Lord Denning M.R. in the Court of Appeal that the <a name="L78"></a><i>SociŽtŽ du Gaz</i> case, 1926 S.C.(H.L.) 13 is no longer law by reason of the convention is mistaken for the convention is concerned with jurisdiction and that case was concerned, as is the present, with the grant of a stay. The Administration of Justice Act 1956 gives effect to the provisions of the 1952 Convention: see the preamble and sections 1 (1) and (4), 3 (1) (2) and (3), 4 (1) (2) (5) and 7. There is nothing in this Act which limits the power of the English court to grant a stay. It goes without saying that the plaintiff has a right to choose the jurisdiction for the plaintiff is the dominus litis. The convention is merely stating this principle and the Administration of Justice Act 1964 echoes this. If the convention were meant to limit the power to grant a stay, it is almost inconceivable that the Act in Part 5 relating to Scots law did not contain a section on this question since a power to grant a stay is a well established principle also of Scots law. [Reference was made to sections 45 and 47.] </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">In <a name="L79"></a><i>Logan v. Bank of Scotland (No. 2)</i> [1906] 1 K.B. 141 a stay was sought and granted on the grounds of vexation and oppression. The </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL444"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>444 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b></b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table> </font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">English forum was clearly inappropriate. It is conceded that in the leading case of <a name="L80"></a><i>McHenry v. Lewis</i> (1882) 22 Ch.D. 397 the words of the Court of Appeal are very wide when referring to the court's general jurisdiction to grant a stay. But in considering the scope of that decision, it is important to take into consideration the facts of the particular case. For example, in that case, there were two sets of proceedings and there was no clear forum convenience. Contrast such a case as two Italian motorists being involved in a collision in Rome. In those circumstances it would be vexatious for the plaintiff to sue in England merely on the ground that it was considered he would obtain larger damages under English law than he would under Italian law. In that case, the forum convenience is plainly in Italy. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">It would appear that there is no case which raises the question whether the English court would grant a stay where the defendant is exposed to a multiplicity of proceedings and no case where it has been urged that the principle recognised in the English cases should be broadened into a general doctrine of forum non convenience. Accordingly, the House is considering the matter res integra. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">As to the contention that the court will not grant a stay in order to deprive a plaintiff of an advantage, if, as is the case, it is the policy of English law to discourage forum shopping, then ipso facto that principle to be given effect to must deprive a plaintiff of an advantage because a plaintiff goes forum shopping for the very purpose of endeavoring to obtain an advantage. <a name="L81"></a><i>Carron Iron Co. v. Maclaren</i> (1855) 5 H.L.Cas. 416 shows that in the middle of the 19th century the courts considered the balance of convenience in determining whether a plaintiff should be entitled to proceed in England. Reliance is placed on that decision of this House where the emphasis is on the completeness of relief. The court will only grant a stay where the other forum gives complete relief. It is concerned with the completeness of the remedy and not with the approach of whether the proceedings are vexatious or oppressive. It might be said that that case is of limited application since it was concerned with the administration of estates and therefore it was particularly important that one creditor should be restrained from obtaining an advantage. But the statements of Lord Cranworth L.C. and Lord St. Lanyards are quite general and they both refer to <a name="L82"></a><i>Bushby v. Monday</i> (1821) 5 Madd. 297 which was not an administration of estates case and where Leach V.-C. refers to the criteria of the ends of justice and the question of convenience. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The strongest case against the appellants is <a name="L83"></a><i>The Janera</i> [1928] P. 55 where it was plain that at that date there was no idea that the court could look beyond whether the proceedings were vexatious or whether there was a lis alibi pen dens. But this is to be contrasted with <a name="L84"></a><i>The Monte Urbasa</i> [1953] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 587 where Lord Merriman P. considered the case on the basis of the balance of convenience. It appears that if there had been a strong balance of convenience in favour of the Argentine that the court would have stayed the English proceedings. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">As to <a name="L85"></a><i>Devine v. Cementation Co. Ltd.</i> [1963] N.I. 65 it is to be noted that it was conceded by both parties that Scott L.J. correctly stated the relevant law in <a name="L86"></a><i>St. Pierre v. South American Stores (Gath & Chaves) Ltd.</i> [1936] 1 K.B. 382. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL445"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>445 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b></b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table> </font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Apart from the <a name="L87"></a><i>SociŽtŽ du Gaz</i> case, 1926 S.C.(H.L.) 13, the Scottish principle is plainly exemplified by such decisions as <a name="L88"></a><i>Clements v. Meekly</i> (1866) 4 M. 583, <a name="L89"></a><i>Williamson v. North-Eastern Railway Co.</i> (1884) 11 R. 596 and <a name="L90"></a><i>Sheaf Steamship Co. Ltd. v. Company Transmediterranea,</i> 1930 S.C. 660. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">For an English case where the court adopted the principle of forum convenience, see <a name="L91"></a><i>The Eleftheria</i> [1970] P. 94 and The Fehmarn [1958] 1 W.L.R. 159 where there was an exclusive jurisdiction clause. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Attention is drawn to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in <a name="L92"></a><i>The Chaparral</i> [1972] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 315 where there is an illuminating exposition of this topic by Burger C.J. If there is an exclusive jurisdiction clause the United States court, by virtue of this decision, will give effect to it, except in very special circumstances. The House is invited to consider <a name="L93"></a><i>The Chaparral,</i> not only for what it decides, but for the spirit in which it was decided. It is based on broad principles and departs from nationalistic attitudes. Further, it supports the proposition that rules should be formulated which obviate more than one trial of any particular matter. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">As to the commonwealth authorities, there is no case of any great stature. Some of them were decided without citation of any authorities and some were decided on the basis of common sense and some merely follow the English authorities, especially <a name="L94"></a><i>McHenry v. Lewis,</i> 21 Ch.D. 202. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><i>J. F. Willmer Q.C.</i> and <i>Nicholas Phillips</i> for the respondent. The reasons for dismissing this appeal can be put under five heads: (1) To allow the appeal would necessitate the House overruling a long line of English decisions and altering principles on which the English courts have hitherto acted. In particular, it would entail altering the principle that has always been accorded by English courts that any plaintiff who can serve the defendant in this country and acts in good faith ought not to be turned away. This principle is also applied in Commonwealth countries. (2) To allow the appeal would be contrary to the principles underlying the Admiralty jurisdiction in rem particularly in view of the existence of maritime liens because it will reduce the value of a foreign ship owner having recourse to the Admiralty court if he cannot enforce his lien here. (3) The principle which the appellants seek to be applied would not truly be in accordance with committee, for committee necessitates the English courts recognising the International Convention of 1952. (4) It is not now appropriate to try to bring English law into line with that of Scotland and the United States for the following reasons: (i) There has always been a separate development of English law and Scots law on this topic which has always been recognised in the time when English law was being developed. (ii) Circumstances in the United States have in some respects been very different. (iii) It would make English law out of line with the other Commonwealth countries applying Commonwealth principles. (5) On the facts it would not be right to stay this action whatever principle be applied. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The English cases establish that where a plaintiff has properly founded jurisdiction and has acted in good faith and is not seeking to vex or oppress the defendant, he is not to be turned away from the judgment seat. The principles stated by Scott L.J. in the <a name="L95"></a><i>St. Pierre</i> case [1936] 1 K.B. 382 are an accurate statement of principles going back at least to 1882 and possibly much earlier. The principle established by English law has a good deal </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL446"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>446 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b></b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table> </font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">of merit. The plaintiff will not be stayed unless he is abusing the process of the court thereby causing injustice to the defendant. To send the plaintiff away in other circumstances is to deny justice to a plaintiff. Scott L.J. is correct in stating that where a plaintiff can gain some legitimate advantage by bringing proceedings here, he will not be stayed from bringing those proceedings. It is conceded that the above reasoning encourages forum shopping and that <a name="L96"></a><i>Boys v. Chaplin</i> [1971] A.C. 356 discourages it. But hitherto there has never been a policy to prevent a plaintiff using the law of this country if he can. Further, in shipping cases there is bound to be a certain amount of forum shopping. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">As to the differences between English maritime law and that of the United States, the United States law does not accept the rule in <a name="L97"></a><i>The Milan</i> (1861) Lush. 388. There was also a difference in relation to the limitation of liability. These two differences illustrate the fact that inevitably where there is a collision on the High Seas, that a party will bring proceedings in the jurisdiction where he considers he has the most advantageous remedies. If security is not given until after the start of proceedings it prevents the defendant from obtaining a stay of proceedings for if it were otherwise it might amount to the reversal of present policy on this question in that it would be the defendant who could determine the jurisdiction in which the proceedings are to be brought. This is an Admiralty case and that reinforces the necessity for applying the above principle. Where a practice has been clear and consistent for over 90 years the House should not hold such a practice erroneous and overrule the cases. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">As to whether the English authorities cited by the appellants would have been decided differently if the doctrine of forum non convenience had been applied, the difficulty is that in almost all of them, there is an element of lis alibi pen dens and they were not a pure stay of proceedings. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The earliest English decision is <a name="L98"></a><i>Sparry's</i> Case (1591) 5 Co.Rep. 61a where it was held that a man shall not be twice vexed for the same cause. In <a name="L99"></a><i>Foster v. Vassall</i> (1747) 3 Atk. 587 the question of convenience was raised in argument, but Lord Hardwicke L.C. appears to have rejected it. Although the law was not developed at that date, nevertheless that decision shows that the law was not developing on the lines of forum non convenience and therefore it supports the respondent's argument. From <a name="L100"></a><i>Bayley v. Edwards</i> (1792) 3 Swan. 703 it would seem that by 1792 there were means of relying on a foreign judgment, but the court was not founding on a doctrine of forum non convenience. <a name="L101"></a><i>Bushby v. Monday,</i> 5 Madd. 297 did not turn on convenience, but on the efficacy of the Scottish judgment. As regards <a name="L102"></a><i>Carron Iron Co. v. Maclaren,</i> 5 H.L.Cas. 416, the speech of Lord St. Lanyards was a dissenting speech and it is difficult to disentangle what he said on the question of jurisdiction. If it be said that that case proceeded on wider principles than hitherto, it is pertinent to observe that it was cited in <a name="L103"></a><i>McHenry v. Lewis,</i> 21 Ch.D. 202 and not so construed. True, Lord Cranworth L.C. uses the expression "principles of convenience" but that expression must be seen in the context of the passage in which it is used; he was looking at that which was vexatious in the eyes of the court; and there is nothing in his speech which is inconsistent with the respondent's argument. It is to be noted that Lord Brougham at p. 446 appears </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL447"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>447 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b></b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table> </font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">to have regarded <a name="L104"></a><i>Bushby v. Monday,</i> 5 Madd. 297 as an extreme case. <a name="L105"></a><i>Carron,</i> 5 H.L.Cas. 416 is not a decision which shows that subsequent cases were out of line with what the House there laid down. <a name="L106"></a><i>Cox v. Mitchell</i> (1859) 7 C.B.N.S. 55 was considered in <a name="L107"></a><i>McHenry v. Lewis,</i> 21 Ch.D. 202 which circumscribed its ambit. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">It does not seem to have occurred to either Bench or Bar that proceedings could be stayed in England on the grounds of a more appropriate forum. There is always an element of lis alibi pen dens and of vexation in the reported cases. Thus <a name="L108"></a><i>Walsh v. Bishop of Lincoln</i> (1874) L.R. 4 A. & E. 242 shows that English courts would take action to prevent proceedings which are vexatious or harassing. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L109"></a><i>McHenry v. Lewis,</i> 21 Ch.D. 202 is the true start of the modern line of cases, but it is not inconsistent with what was stated or decided in previous cases. <a name="L110"></a><i>Persian Guano Co. v. Bockwoldt</i> (1883) 23 Ch.D. 225 is an important decision. It followed <a name="L111"></a><i>McHenry v. Lewis</i> and there is a clear statement of principle by Sir George Jessel M.R. which contains all the ingredients of the principles laid down by Scott L.J. in the <a name="L112"></a><i>St. Pierre</i> case [1936] 1 K.B. 382. Jostle M.R. was looking at the question of vexation broadly, both where it amounts to harassment and where there are concurrent actions. Strong reliance is placed on the statement of Bowen L.J. 23 Ch.D. 225, 233 for the principle on which the respondent relies. If this appeal is to be allowed, those observations will have to be overruled. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">As to the enforcement of foreign judgments, at common law from the 17th to the 19th centuries, the practice grew up of enforcing a foreign judgment in this country on the grounds of committee. The old decisions show, however, that two conditions had to be satisfied: (i) it had to be for a debt or sum certain; and (ii) the foreign court must have similar concepts to the English court on the question of jurisdiction. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">There also grew up in the same period the practice of allowing a defendant to rely on a foreign judgment as evidence that the debt had been satisfied or a judgment had been given in his favour. [Reference was made to the Judgments Extension Act 1868, the Administration of Justice Act 1920 and the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcements) Act 1933.] </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L113"></a><i>Hyman v. Helm</i> (1883) 24 Ch.D. 531 has been frequently cited in subsequent English and Commonwealth cases for the proposition that it is no ground for staying proceedings that a plaintiff obtains procedural advantages by pursuing his claim here. <a name="L114"></a><i>Ewing v. Orr Ewing</i> (1885) 10 App.Cas. 453 recognised the difference between the Scottish and English approach to the question of forum convenience. The Scots doctrine of forum conveniens was recognised. That decision shows that the English and Scottish practice had grown up separately and this separation is exemplified by subsequent decisions: see e.g., <a name="L115"></a><i>Metropolitan Bank Ltd. v. Pooley</i> (1885) 10 App.Cas. 210 where the Earl of Selborne L.C. and Lord Blackburn considered the English practice in relation to staying vexatious proceedings. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L116"></a><i>Thornton v. Thornton</i> (1886) 11 P.D. 176 is strongly in the respondent's favour. It is the last in the line of cases in the 1880s which finally established the law since the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 in the way for which the respondents contend. There are numerous subsequent cases which are in line with the <a name="L117"></a><i>St. Pierre</i> case [1936] 1 K.B. 382: see <a name="L118"></a><i>Chaney </i> </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL448"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>448 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b></b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table> </font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L119"></a><i>v. Murphy</i> (1948) 64 T.L.R. 489. <a name="L120"></a><i>Sealey (orse. Callan) v. Callan</i> [1953] P. 135 shows that where the court has beyond question jurisdiction in a matter it requires a very strong case before it will exercise its power to prevent a party from proceeding. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L121"></a><i>Devine v. Cementation Co. Ltd.</i> [1963] N.I. 65 is an unusually strong case on its facts. It is pertinent to observe that if the doctrine of forum non convenience was applicable the result might well have been different there. It is true that both parties conceded in that case that the observations of Scott L.J. in the <a name="L122"></a><i>St. Pierre</i> case [1936] 1 K.B. 382 correctly stated the law, but there is nothing to show that the court did not accept that position. The result in that case can be contrasted with the Scottish case of <a name="L123"></a><i>Williamson v. North-Eastern Railway Co.,</i> 11 R. 596. The principles considered above have recently received the approval of the Court of Appeal on two occasions, apart from the present case: see <a name="L124"></a><i>Ionian Bank Ltd. v. Couvreur</i> [1969] 1 W.L.R. 781 and <a name="L125"></a><i>Maharanee of Baroda v. Wildenstein</i> [1972] 2 Q.B. 283. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">There can be fewer longer or stronger lines of cases than the present. There is no case in this House which is inconsistent with this line of cases. There was a chance of the House making a resolution on this line in the two decisions which came before the House in 1885. The present line of authorities has now been settled and it would be wrong for the House to interfere. The appellants are seeking a radical departure from the procedure in this type of case. If it be thought that it is necessary for such a radical change, it should be the subject of legislation. For the House to intervene now would be tantamount to legislation. Futhermore, to make a change of this nature would be to put English law out of line with Commonwealth decisions which have followed the English cases hitherto. Except for one Canadian case, there appears to be a uniformity of approach on the English line of authority. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">As to Australian cases, <a name="L126"></a><i>Rutt v. Metropolitan Underwriters (Australia) Ltd.</i> [1929] S.A.S.R. 426 contains a short statement of the principle. <a name="L127"></a><i>Telford Panel & Engineering Works Pty. Ltd. v. Elder Smith Goldsbrough Mort Ltd.</i> [1969] V.R. 193 is of interest for an attempt was made there to extend the law as hitherto understood in relation to a stay, but the court refused so to do and restated the principles in very similar language to the way it was stated by Bowen L.J. in the <a name="L128"></a><i>Peruvian Guano</i> case, 23 Ch.D. 225. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The New Zealand cases do not add anything to the principle. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The following Canadian cases are of interest for they could well have gone the other way if some wider principle were applicable: <a name="L129"></a><i>Anderson v. Thomas</i> [1935] 3 D.L.R. 286; <a name="L130"></a><i>Bank of America National Trust & Banking Association v. Poyet</i> [1955] 1 D.L.R. 680. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">In Admiralty actions the right to assert a jurisdiction in rem where service is effected on a vessel in territorial waters is one which has long been recognised, not only in England, but in other maritime nations. This is particularly so when the plaintiffs' claim gives rise to a maritime lien, as it does in this case. Such a lien follows the vessel anywhere in the world and may even survive a change of ownership. The plaintiff can bring an action and enforce his lien in any country where he can arrest the ship, however convenient or inconvenient to the defendant ship owner. Any ship owner must be well aware of this risk. The right to bring </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL449"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>449 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b></b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table> </font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">proceedings in rem to enforce a maritime lien has existed in the English Admiralty court for centuries and is now expressly conferred by section 3 (3) of the Administration of Justice Act 1956. It is clear from this provision, which is in accordance with the general practice of maritime countries, that a plaintiff can sue in the Admiralty court whether or not there is any connection with this country other than the fact that it has been visited by the defendant's ship. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Against this background it is not surprising that a stay of an Admiralty action is not readily granted. There is no reported case where a stay has been granted on grounds of convenience alone. In cases in which an application to stay an action has been made, the Admiralty court has acted in accordance with the following principles: (a) Where a vessel is arrested in a foreign jurisdiction and her owners buy her release by providing bail or equivalent security, the court will stay proceedings subsequently commenced by the same plaintiff in England. Such a stay is granted not on grounds of convenience, or because of multiplicity of actions but because of the plaintiff's bad faith in proceeding in England when he has accepted security provided by the defendant elsewhere: see e.g., <a name="L131"></a><i>The Christiansborg</i> (1885) 10 P.D. 141: <a name="L132"></a><i>The Marinero</i> [1955] P. 68. (b) Where a plaintiff commences proceedings abroad but does not obtain security, and subsequently commences proceedings in England, the court does not consider his conduct vexatious or improper. However, the court will not permit him thereafter without good reason to prosecute both actions at once. In these circumstances, the court will normally allow the plaintiff to continue to prosecute the English proceedings upon his undertaking to withdraw proceedings instituted by him abroad. In particular, the court will not stay an action brought in this country in order, inter alia, to obtain security, if he has not previously obtained security elsewhere: see e.g., <a name="L133"></a><i>The Glenluce</i> (1929) 34 Ll.L.Rep. 407; <a name="L134"></a><i>The Hartlepool</i> (1950) 84 Ll.L.Rep. 145; <a name="L135"></a><i>The Soya Margareta</i> [1961] 1 W.L.R. 709. (c) In cases where the plaintiff in England has been the defendant abroad and the defendant in England has applied for a stay of the proceedings in England on the ground that proceedings are on foot abroad arising out of the same subject matter and that multiplicity of proceedings is undesirable, and also in some instances on the ground that the foreign forum is more convenient, the application for a stay has in every case been rejected: see <a name="L136"></a><i>The Janera</i> [1928] P. 55; <a name="L137"></a><i>The London</i> [1931] P. 14; <a name="L138"></a><i>The Madrid</i> [1937] P. 40; <a name="L139"></a><i>The Quo Vadis</i> [1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 425; <a name="L140"></a><i>The Monte Urbasa</i> [1953] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 587; <a name="L141"></a><i>The Lucile Bloomfield</i> [1964] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 324. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">An early case is <a name="L142"></a><i>The Bold Buccleugh</i> (1851) 7 Moo.P.C.C. 267 where it was held that the fact that there was an earlier action in personam commenced in Scotland was not sufficient to enable the defendant to obtain a stay of proceedings in rem in England, particularly where there was a maritime lien. For a short summary of the Admiralty jurisdiction, see <i>per</i>Lord Denning M.R. in <a name="L143"></a><i>The Banco</i> [1971] P. 137. It is not without interest that the kind of situation which has arisen in the present case is by no means uncommon in the Admiralty court, for between 1961 and 1970 in nine out of 51 collision cases before the court both ships were foreign and the collision took place in foreign territorial waters. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The law enshrined in the above Admiralty cases is consistent with the </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL450"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>450 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b></b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table> </font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Administration of Justice Act 1956 which implicitly approves it. Section 1 (4) which relates to claims brought in the Admiralty court for damage has express application to foreign ships (paragraph (<i>a</i>)) and it also relates to claims arising in foreign territorial waters (paragraph (<i>b</i>)). Section 3 is relevant to the present case. It concerns the Admiralty jurisdiction in rem and there are no restrictions as to the place where the collision occurred or the residence of the parties nor is there a necessity for a party discontinuing any proceedings started elsewhere before proceeding here. But in section 4 concerning actions in personam there are restrictions. See subsections (2) and (7) for example. The respondents emphasise the contrast between actions in personam and actions in rem. The contrast points to the fact that in relation to actions in rem it was the legislature's intention that there should not only be jurisdiction, but that it should be exercised. Section 3 indicates that in relation to actions in rem, there should only be a stay in extreme circumstances. Attention is also drawn to section 5 (2) in relation to the Admiralty court entertaining jurisdiction relating to wages. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">As to the International Convention of 1952, this provides a strong indication of what has been agreed between the high contracting parties. It does not have the force of law except insofar as it is incorporated in municipal legislation. It is somewhat extraordinary if the Convention allows the plaintiff to choose his jurisdiction, but that the plaintiff can then be met with the objection that he will not be allowed to proceed in the chosen jurisdiction. It must be conceded on the construction of the Act of 1956 for which the respondents contend that it has failed to deal adequately with proceedings in Scotland. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">It is to be observed that the Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Act 1958, section 5, appears to be envisaging a case such as the present. It gives the ship owner a right to apply to the court for release of his ship provided that he can show that adequate security has been given in another jurisdiction. Parliament is envisaging that where actions in rem are commenced in this country, the ship owner must submit to the jurisdiction of the English court to adjudicate on the plaintiff's claim. This supports the respondent's submission that in cases of action in rem, the courts should not thereafter stay the action. This section would prevent the defendants saying here that there are proceedings pending in Antwerp. Section 5 recognises the difference between English and Scots law; the section would prevent the extension of the Scottish doctrine of forum non convenience to English law. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">It is not disputed that the doctrine of forum non convenience is part of the law of Scotland and is to be found in the United States, but to apply the doctrine to England would entail overturning a long line of precedent. Further, it is less in accordance with the Act of 1956 and the Convention, and it would place English law out of line with other Commonwealth countries. The separate development of the law of Scotland and the law of England has always been recognised: see <a name="L144"></a><i>Logan v. Bank of Scotland (No. 2)</i> [1906] 1 K.B. 141 and the <a name="L145"></a><i>SociŽtŽ du Gaz</i> case, 1926 S.C.(H.L.) 13. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">As to the courts of the United States, there are further reservations relating to the doctrine. In relation to inter-State disputes, different considerations arise than in this country. True, so far as foreign actions </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL451"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>451 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b></b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table> </font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">are concerned it is conceded that the United States courts have this doctrine and that it is applied but it is not an unqualified discretion and it also appears that the United States courts will not apply the doctrine if the remedies in the foreign court do not offer the same range of procedural remedies as in the United States: see <a name="L146"></a><i>Mobil Tankers Co. S.A. v. Mene Grande Oil Co.</i> (1966) 363 F. 2d 611. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">In conclusion, it would be a change of policy for this House to adopt the doctrine of forum non convenience. As to questions of policy, see <a name="L147"></a><i>Launchbury v. Morgans</i> [1973] A.C. 127. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><i>Goff Q.C.</i> in reply. As to the issue of the giving of security, it is extraordinary that a change of circumstances should not be taken into account if the change occurs after proceedings have commenced in this country. Reliance is placed in <a name="L148"></a><i>SociŽtŽ GŽnŽrale de Paris v. Dreyfus Brothers</i> (1887) 37 Ch.D. 215 to counter the respondent's argument that if proceedings are not vexatious when they are began in England, changed circumstances subsequently cannot be taken into consideration. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The central issue is whether the House should recognise the courts have power to stay proceedings because there is a more appropriate forum. The respondents rely on the authorities. It is conceded from the outset that there is a long line of authorities since 1882. The additional authorities that have been cited in this House only highlight the extreme lengths to which the principle stated in the St. Pierre case [1936] 1 K.B. 382 has been taken. Commonwealth authorities merely follow the English cases and there is no separate analysis of the relevant principles. The House is free to consider the principles anew. There is no question of vested rights involved. This is a pure question of policy, especially is this so where questions of committee are involved. It is undesirable that courts in Scotland and England should have a different approach on a question of policy, especially since both countries have now joined the European Economic Community. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The respondent has also relied on the proposition that the plaintiff having established jurisdiction in England that thereafter he should not be driven from the judgment seat. But this is looking at the question purely from the point of view of the plaintiff and ignoring the position of the defendant. The respondent's argument confuses the question of jurisdiction and the question of a stay being granted. It also ignores the question of committee, for drawn to its logical conclusion, it could lead to conflicting decisions. As a matter of principle a wider jurisdiction than hitherto should be recognised by the English courts. The principles for which the appellants contend are foreshadowed in the decision in the <a name="L149"></a><i>Carron Iron Co.</i> case, 5 H.L.Cas. 416. True, Lord St. Leonards's opinion was a dissenting opinion in that case, but his dissent did not go to the question of the principles involved. As to the decline in purely nationalistic considerations on matters of policy: see <i>Spencer Bower and Turner, Res Judicata,</i> 2nd ed. (1969), pp. 60 to 62, para. 66. The House is invited to review the relevant line of authorities in the same spirit as did the Supreme Court of the United States in the <a name="L150"></a><i>Chaparral</i> case [1972] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 315. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">As to the facts, Brandon J. held that the Commercial Court of Antwerp was by far the more appropriate forum. This has never been challenged. The <a name="L151"></a><i>Sheaf</i> case, 1930 S.C. 660 establishes that the Scottish courts would </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL452"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>452 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b></b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table> </font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">have granted a stay in the present circumstances. If there be in English law a doctrine of forum convenience then this is an overwhelming case for granting a stay. The fact that the plaintiff believes that he is more likely to win here is not a reason for the House refusing to grant a stay. This is a case of forum shopping and of a plaintiff coming here because he considers he is more likely to win here. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">As to the Convention of 1952, the Act of 1956 has to be looked at. If it is perused, no trace of a provision to abolish the powers of the courts of England and Scotland to stay proceedings can be found. It is unthinkable that Parliament intended to abolish that power except by an express provision. Sections 22 to 25 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 are related to Admiralty jurisdiction. Section 7 (2) of the Act of 1956 preserves the power of the English courts, its inherent power, to stay proceedings. If the respondent's arguments are correct, then such cases as <a name="L152"></a><i>The Christiansborg,</i> 10 P.D. 141 have no longer any effect in English law. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Their Lordships took time for consideration. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">April 10. LORD REID. My Lords, in this case the appellants ask us to review the law regarding stay of proceedings in an English court in cases where proceedings with regard to the same matter have been or will be brought in a foreign court. This case arises out of the arrest in an English port of a Dutch vessel, the <i>Atlantic Star</i>, belonging to the appellants who are large and well-known Dutch ship owners. The respondents are a Dutch company who owned a barge which was sunk in Belgian waters in a collision with the <i>Atlantic Star.</i> They allege that this was due to the fault of the appellants' vessel and in order to recover damages they arrested the appellants' vessel in this country. Thereby they founded jurisdiction against the appellants in England and on release of the vessel obtained ample security to cover thicker claim. They were entitled to do this but the appellants seek a stay of their action in England because the Belgian court is the proper forum to deal with the respondents' claim. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The facts have been fully, accurately and clearly stated by Brandon J. in his judgment in the Admiralty Court [1972] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 534 and I shall only state such of the facts as are relevant to the determination of the question now before your Lordships. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The collision occurred in dense fog in the Schelde on the night of Jaunty 27, 1970. Three vessels were involved. The third vessel began proceedings in Belgium on January 29. It appears that the normal course in Belgium is for the court to appoint a court surveyor to inquire into the circumstances and causes of the collision and this was done. On February 16, 1970, the respondents were joined in the inquiry. The surveyor took statements from witnesses and collected various reports and documents. The respondents' lawyers were present. In February 1971, the surveyor made his report. It appears to point to a conclusion that the Atlantic Star was not at fault. Apparently the Belgian court generally agrees with the surveyor's reports, so the respondents might well fail if their case against the appellants proceeds in Belgium. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">So in June 1971, when the <i>Atlantic Star</i> was calling at an English port, </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL453"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>453 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Lord Reid </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">they began proceedings in England where they think for various reasons that they have a better chance of success. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Brandon J. said: "I have no doubt at all that, so far as convenience is concerned, the Commercial Court of Antwerp is by far the more appropriate forum" (p. 539). He gave five main reasons for this, including the place of collision, the fact that the case is governed by Belgian law and local regulations, the fact that five other claims arising out of the collision are pending in Antwerp, the fact that by reason of an offer made by the appellants full security will be available there; and he said: "the case has absolutely no connection with England, except that, because the defendants' ship trades from time to time to an English port, she is liable to arrest here" (p. 539). </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">But following the trend of modern authority he felt bound to refuse to stay this action, and this decision was upheld in the Court of Appeal. The authorities are dealt with by my noble and learned friend, Lord Wilberforce, and I shall not repeat that examination. They support the general proposition that a foreign plaintiff, who can establish jurisdiction against a foreign defendant by any method recognised by English law, is entitled to pursue his action in the English courts if he genuinely thinks that that will be to his advantage and is not acting merely vexatiously. Neither the parties nor the subject matter of the action need have any connection with England. There may be proceedings on the same subject matter in a foreign court. It may be a far more appropriate forum. The defendant may have to suffer great expense and inconvenience in coming here. In the end the decisions of the English and foreign courts may conflict. But nevertheless the plaintiff has a right to obtain the decision of an English court. He must not act vexatiously or oppressively or in abuse of the process of the English court, but these terms have been narrowly construed. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">It is said that the right of access to the Queen's court must not be lightly refused. In the present case Lord Denning M.R. said [1973] Q.B. 364, 381G, 382C: </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">"No one who comes to these courts asking for justice should come in vain. ... This right to come here is not confined to Englishmen. It extends to any friendly foreigner. He can seek the aid of our courts if he desires to do so. You may call this 'forum shopping' if you please, but if the forum is England, it is a good place to shop in, both for the quality of the goods and the speed of service." </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">My Lords, with all respect, that seems to me to recall the good old days, the passing of which many may regret, when inhabitants of this island felt an innate superiority over those unfortunate enough to belong to other races. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">It is a function of this House to try, so far as possible, to keep the development of the common law in line with the policy of Parliament and the movement of public opinion. So I think that the time is ripe for a re-examination of the rather insular doctrine to which I have referred. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The appellants' counsel first referred to the law of Scotland, where for a very long time the plea of forum non convenience has been recognised as valid. No doubt it is a desirable objective to diminish remaining differences between the laws of the sister countries. But we must proceed with all </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL454"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>454 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Lord Reid </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">due caution. That plea is particularly important in connection with the peculiar Scottish method of founding jurisdiction by arrestment ad fundandem jurisdictionem. I cannot foresee all the repercussions of making a fundamental change in English law and I am not at all satisfied that it would be proper for this House to make such a fundamental change or that it is necessary or desirable. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">So in my opinion we should seek any change within the existing framework of English law. The existing basis is that the plaintiff must not be acting vexatiously, oppressively or in abuse of the process of the court. Those are flexible words and I think that in future they should be interpreted more liberally. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">There was a time when a judgment obtained in one country was of little use in any other. There was a time when it could reasonably be said that our system of administration of justice, though expensive and elaborate, was superior to that in most other countries. But today we must, I think, admit that as a general rule there is no injustice in telling a plaintiff that he should go back to his own courts. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">So I would draw some distinction between a case where England is the natural forum for the plaintiff and a case where the plaintiff merely comes here to serve his own ends. In the former the plaintiff should not be "driven from the judgment seat" without very good reason, but in the latter the plaintiff should, I think, be expected to offer some reasonable justification for his choice of forum if the defendant seeks a stay. If both parties are content to proceed here there is no need to object. There have been many recent criticisms of "forum shopping" and I regard it as undesirable. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">I think that a key to the solution of the problem may be found in a liberal interpretation of what is oppressive on the part of the plaintiff. The position of the defendant must be put in the scales. In the end it must be left to the discretion of the court in each case where a stay is sought, and the question would be whether the defendants have clearly shown that to allow the case to proceed in England would in a reasonable sense be oppressive looking to all the circumstances including the personal position of the defendant. That appears to me to be a proper development of the existing law. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">So I turn to the present case. I would not regard a foreigner who arrests a ship in England as necessarily forum shopping. The right to arrest a ship is an ancient and often a necessary right. Not only may there be difficulty otherwise in establishing jurisdiction in an appropriate forum, but the arrest gives to the arrester what may be a very necessary security. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">In the present case, however, that is not so. Proceeding in the appropriate Belgian forum offers no difficulty and the appellants have offered to provide security there. I reject the technical argument that we are not entitled to consider an offer of security made after proceedings have commenced. That may have to be considered when awarding costs, but we must, I think, take account of the position when the stay is asked for. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">It is true that looking to the resources of the appellants there would be no great hardship in requiring them to litigate here, but that is only one element in considering whether on the whole it would be oppressive to require them to litigate here. On the whole I think that the appellants have </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL455"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>455 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Lord Reid </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">shown clearly enough that they ought not to be required to litigate here as well as in Antwerp. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">There is one other matter to which I must refer. In 1952 there was an International Convention by which the parties including this country agreed certain rules regarding civil jurisdiction in matters of collision. Article 1 provides: "(2) It shall be for the plaintiff to decide in which of the courts referred to in (1) of this article, the action shall be instituted." That includes the court of the place where an arrest had been effected. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The convention only purports to deal with jurisdiction and no one disputes that the English court has jurisdiction to deal with this case. But the respondents argue that this article must have been intended to have a wider effect because it would be a mockery to allow the plaintiff to choose the English court and then to make that choice ineffective by staying his action. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">But this argument proves too much. If right, it would prevent the English court from staying the action on any ground except perhaps bad faith. We cannot read into the article some qualification such as "provided that his decision is reasonable." There are some very limited grounds on which an English court can under present practice stay an action arising out of a collision, e.g., where the ship has already been arrested in another jurisdiction and security obtained there. So if this is the meaning of the convention there would have to be some change in English law. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Still more there would have to be a change in the law of Scotland: the plea forum non convenience would have to be entirely excluded in collision cases. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">A treaty does not become part of our law except in so far as it is embodied in an Act of Parliament. The Administration of Justice Act 1956 was obviously intended to bring the laws of the United Kingdom into line with the convention. But I can find nothing in it to alter either the law of England or the law of Scotland so as to restrict the power of the courts of either country to stay an action. Parliament and those advising it must have thought that the convention dealt solely with jurisdiction and had nothing to do with power to stay an action. In this I think they were right. So in my opinion the terms of the convention ought not to affect our judgment with regard to the staying of an action and I have left it out of account in reaching my decision. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">For the reasons which I have given I would allow this appeal. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">LORD MORRIS OF BORTH-Y-GEST. My Lords, following a collision, in a channel of the River Schelde leading to one of the locks at Antwerp, between a Dutch motor vessel, the <i>Atlantic Star,</i> owned by the Holland America Line and a Dutch motor barge, the <i>Bona Spes,</i> the owner of the latter desires to litigate in this country. He has commenced proceedings here. It is beyond question that he was entitled to do so. The English court has jurisdiction to hear the suit. But the owners of the former ship wish to have the litigation in Belgium. Which of the two Dutch owners should prevail? </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The situation here arising (that is to say, a situation where a plaintiff has chosen to sue here and under our law has every right to do so but where a defendant has reasons for asking that the case be tried in another country) </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL456"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>456 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">is one that has constantly and frequently called for examination by our courts. That the court has a power to stay is undeniable. The proviso to section 41 of the Judicature Act 1925 makes this plain. Furthermore, a court has an inherent power to protect itself from the abuse of its process by a proceeding without reasonable ground so as to be vexatious and harassing: see <a name="L153"></a><i>Metropolitan Bank v. Pooley</i> (1885) 10 App.Cas. 210. But from a succession of decisions in our courts a pattern has emerged. It differs from that which has emerged in Scotland. If the motion to stay in this case had been decided upon the principles which apply in Scotland (see e.g. <a name="L154"></a><i>SociŽtŽ du Gaz de Paris v. La SociŽtŽ Anonyme de Navigation "Les Armateurs Franais,"</i> 1926 S.C.(H.L.) 13) I think that it would have been held that on a consideration of the balance of convenience a trial in the Belgian courts would be more appropriate than a trial in England. In his careful judgment Brandon J. marshals the various circumstances which support that view. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">But the motion was decided and had to be decided both by the learned judge and by the Court of Appeal on the basis of English law and of the principles laid down in a long line of English cases. Only, I think, if there is a departure from these cases could the present appeal be allowed. The appellants contend that there should be an "expansion of the relevant principles into a doctrine of forum non convenience." Broad questions of judicial policy are, therefore, involved. Should the principles which are clearly to be found in the English cases now be basically altered? Should they be so altered in cases where jurisdiction rests upon a firm recognition and acceptance of the existence of maritime liens? Should they be altered by this House in a case which will have been brought in the English courts on the basis of the pronouncements which have indicated the only circumstance in which jurisdiction which is available and which has been invoked will be denied? The learned judge exercised his discretion, as did concurrently the members of the Court of Appeal, on the basis of those pronouncements. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The Admiralty court differs from courts in which the suits and the suitors are predominantly domestic. It is a court to which suitors from a range of maritime countries have been accustomed or content to resort. No chauvinism is involved in recognizing as a fact that it has been at the choice of many ship owners from other countries, as it was in the present case, that Admiralty cases have been brought in the English Admiralty Court. Ought a fundamental change of policy to be made by a decision of this House? If some change were thought to be desirable, ought it to be made, not by judicial decision, but rather in some other way and possibly only after processes of consultation which might lead to a common acceptance of policy by the maritime countries principally concerned? </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">A study of the English cases reveals a consistent approach. Benefit is to be derived rather from considering what has been the general line of that approach than from considering the particular decisions reached on particular facts. The cases show that if there is jurisdiction in the court and if a plaintiff becomes enabled to invoke it and chooses to do so he may nevertheless in some circumstances not be allowed to do so. In the decisions which indicate what those circumstances are certain words constantly emerge. They are such words as "vexation" or "oppression." Thus in </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL457"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>457 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L155"></a><i>McHenry v. Lewis</i> (1882) 22 Ch.D. 397, 399, Sir George Jessel M.R. said that it was part of the general jurisdiction of the court to prevent a defendant being "improperly vexed" by legal procedure: and where there was one action in this country and another action in another country the court would protect a defendant by staying the action if the defendant was being improperly vexed. Cotton L.J. at p. 407 said that if a plaintiff's action is "vexatiously harassing the defendant" then it may be stayed. Bowen L.J. at p. 408 rested on </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">"the general principle that the court can and will interfere whenever there is vexation and oppression to prevent the administration of justice being perverted for an unjust end." </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">In another case in the Court of Appeal a few weeks later <a name="L156"></a><i>(Peruvian Guano Co. v. Bockwoldt</i> (1883) 23 Ch.D. 225) Sir George Jessel M.R., Lindley and Bowen L.JJ. laid down the same principles. In that case an English company sued a French firm in England and also in France. A motion on behalf of the defendants that the plaintiff be ordered to elect as between the two proceedings was refused. There was no vexatious harassing which could amount to oppression. The pursuit of the two suits was not vexatious "where the plaintiffs seeks to get a real substantial advantage." Sir George Jessel M.R. pointed to the danger of "depriving men of the opportunity of asserting their rights, which they are asserting bona fide, unless we arrived clearly at the conclusion that the asserting of them was vexatious, ..." (p. 232). Bowen L.J. said, at p. 234: </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">"It seems to me we have no sort of right, moral or legal, to take away from a plaintiff any real chance he may have of an advantage. If there is a fair possibility that he may have an advantage by prosecuting a suit in two countries, why should this court interfere and deprive him of it?" </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">In <a name="L157"></a><i>Hyman v. Helm</i> (1883) 24 Ch.D. 531 plaintiffs, who carried on business in San Francisco, sued defendants in England alleging that the defendants had been agents for the plaintiffs to make purchases. The plaintiffs claimed an account. The defendants, who carried on business in England, claimed that they had not been agents but had as principals sold goods to the plaintiffs. The defendants then sued the plaintiffs in San Francisco to recover what they said was due to them. The plaintiffs moved to restrain the defendants from taking these proceedings. The motion was refused by Chitty J. and this decision was upheld by Sir William Brett M.R., Cotton and Bowen L.JJ. It was refused because the foreign proceedings did not constitute a vexatious or oppressive multiplication of actions. The course of procedure in San Francisco might have been such as to give advantages to the defendants. Both in <a name="L158"></a><i>Thornton v. Thornton</i> (1886) 11 P.D. 176 and in <a name="L159"></a><i>In re Norton's Settlement</i> [1908] 1 Ch. 471, the test of mere balance of convenience was accepted. In eke latter case a stay of proceedings in England was granted because the English venue "was not chosen for any legitimate reason," (p. 482) and because the injustice to the defendant of continuing the proceedings in England would be oppressive. The allegation had been made that the action was not bona fide but had been instituted for purposes of embarrassment and annoyance. The </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL458"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>458 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">process of the court was being used "for a sinister or bye purpose" (p. 484). In the former case in 1886 where a stay was refused similar considerations were voiced to those which had been expressed in <a name="L160"></a><i>Peruvian Guano Co. v. Bockwoldt,</i> 23 Ch.D. 225. The wife thought (and with some reason) that she had an advantage in prosecuting her suit in England. Ought she to be deprived of her right to do so? Only, said Bowen L.J., if the court saw clearly that there would be oppression or waste or vexation if her suit proceeded and if the court by staying it could do no harm. In the circumstances existing in <a name="L161"></a><i>The Janera</i> [1928] P. 55, Hill J. refused a stay. The ground of the application for a stay was that the action was oppressive and vexatious. The plaintiffs had instituted a cross-action in Egypt prior to bringing proceedings in England: they then discontinued their cross-action in Egypt. Had they not done so they would have been put to their election, but as they had done so then, even though they were being sued in Egypt in respect of the collision, Hill J. considered that they ought not to be deprived of their right to sue in England. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">In the earlier case of <a name="L162"></a><i>The Christiansborg</i> (1885) 10 P.D. 141, where a ship was first arrested in Holland and later in this country, the test of oppression was applied on an application to stay. Fry L.J. who was one of the majority in upholding the order for a stay made by Hannen J. was of the opinion that the institution of the action in England was in the circumstances of the case "against good faith." </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">In <a name="L163"></a><i>St. Pierre v. South American Stores (Gath & Chaves) Ltd.</i> [1936] 1 K.B. 382, one argument that was advanced in the Court of Appeal in support of an application to stay was that the English court was not the forum convenience but the test of a mere balance of convenience was not accepted. In a passage in his judgment that has often been cited Scott L.J. said, at p. 398: </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">"The true rule about a stay under section 41, so far as relevant to this case, may I think be stated thus: (1) A mere balance of convenience is not a sufficient ground for depriving a plaintiff of the advantages of prosecuting his action in an English court if it is otherwise properly brought. The right of access to the King's court must not be lightly refused. (2) In order to justify a stay two conditions must be satisfied, one positive and the other negative: (<i>a</i>) the defendant must satisfy the court that the continuance of the action would work an injustice because it would be oppressive or vexatious to him or would be an abuse of the process of the court in some other way; and (<i>b</i>) the stay must not cause an injustice to the plaintiff. On both the burden of proof is on the defendant. The propositions are, I think, consistent with and supported by the following cases: <a name="L164"></a><i>McHenry v. Lewis,</i> 22 Ch.D. 397; <a name="L165"></a><i>Peruvian Guano Co. v. Bockwoldt,</i> 23 Ch.D. 225; <a name="L166"></a><i>Hymen v. Helm,</i> 24 Ch.D. 531; <a name="L167"></a><i>Thornton v. Thornton,</i> 11 P.D. 176; and <a name="L168"></a><i>Logan v. Bank of Scotland (No. 2)</i> [1906] 1 K.B. 141, 150, 151." </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">In cases since 1936 the test as to whether proceedings are vexatious has been the test applied. Thus in <a name="L169"></a><i>The Soya Margareta</i> [1961] 1 W.L.R. 709, 716 Hewson J. said: </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">"Though convenience is a matter not lightly to be discarded, I do not think that such a preponderance of convenience in the getting together </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL459"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>459 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">of the evidence necessary in this case makes this action so vexatious that I ought to prevent the plaintiffs from following the course they have chosen." </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">In the earlier case of <a name="L170"></a><i>The Quo Vadis</i> [1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 425, Pilcher J. regarded it as axiomatic that a stay would not be granted unless proceedings were oppressive or vexatious. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">In <a name="L171"></a><i>Ionian Bank Ltd. v. Couvreur</i> [1969] 1 W.L.R. 781, the Court of Appeal in affirming a refusal to stay an action held that the defendant had failed to show that its continuance was vexatious or oppressive: the plaintiff had a fair possibility of advantage in prosecuting his suit. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">In my view, if the present motion is to be decided according to the principles which have for a long time guided and indeed bound learned judges and the Court of Appeal then I think that this appeal must fail. The proceedings brought in this country by the Dutch owner against the Holland America Line cannot, in my view, be regarded as vexatious or oppressive. They were not instituted in order to harass the defendants. There was no bad faith. There was no improper motive. The owner of the <i>Bona Spes</i> considers that as his vessel when lying moored was run into and sunk by the <i>Atlantic Star</i> he has a good cause of action. Rightly or wrongly he believes that in the advancement or for the protection of his legitimate financial interests his prospects of success are better in this country than in Belgium. It is not our province to decide whether he is right or wrong. But his good faith cannot be assailed. We are told that the report of the court surveyor in Belgium indicates his view that the <i>Atlantic Star</i> was not to blame. We are further told that though the report will not bind a Belgian court at a trial it will carry much weight with it: a court will in most cases accept the findings of fact of a surveyor: as to the views on responsibility of a surveyor a court is more likely to accept them than to depart from them. In view of this the respondent believes that this claim might fail in Belgium and that in England he will have a better chance of success. The learned judge said [1973] Q.B. 364, 369: "Whether his beliefs in these respects are right or wrong it would, in my view, be difficult to say that there were no reasonable grounds for his holding them." </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">I see no reason to suggest that there was any error in their exercise of discretion either by the learned judge or by the numbers of the Court of Appeal. In my view, only if the law as hitherto propounded be now changed could their exercise of discretion be overturned. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">In his judgment the learned judge accurately reviewed and stated the law which bound him and then proceeded to consider how he should exercise his discretion. His conclusions were expressed as follows, at p. 372: </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">"If, therefore, a finding that the Commercial Court of Antwerp was by far the more convenient forum was sufficient of itself to justify me in granting a stay, I should have no hesitation in doing so. As I have indicated, however, I do not consider that the authorities permit me to adopt that approach. I turn to consider, therefore, whether the plaintiff has any good reason for suing here, so that a stay would prejudice him; and whether the difficulties which the defendants would meet as a result of having to defend the action here would be so great </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL460"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>460 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">as to cause them injustice. On the first point, I do not think that it can justly be said that the plaintiff's motive in suing here is in any way improper. He is suing here because he thinks that he is more likely to succeed here. He has reasons for thinking so, which cannot fairly be categorised as either nugatory or unreasonable. In these circumstances I am of opinion that he would be prejudiced by a stay in the sense that he would be deprived of an advantage which he genuinely and reasonably believes trial of his claim in England would give him. On the second point, while it is inconvenient and expensive for the defendants to have to defend the plaintiff's claim here, while at the same time having to defend at least five other claims in Belgium, I do not consider that the degree of inconvenience and expense is so great as to make it unjust to the defendants to oblige them to do so." </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">In the Court of Appeal Lord Denning M.R. accepted the findings of the learned judge as to convenience and said, at p. 384: </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">"But, given all that convenience, the judge refused to stay the action in this country: and I agree with him. It is plain that the plaintiff honestly believes that there are substantial advantages to him in taking proceedings in England." </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Phillimore L.J. agreed in dismissing the appeal while saying that if the problem could be treated as res integra he would have wished to allow the appeal. Cairns L.J. said, at p. 388: </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">"I can conceive of cases where inconvenience might be so great as to amount to oppression. I cannot see that the inconvenience here is of that degree. It is by no means uncommon for different causes of action arising out of the same casualty to lead to two actions in different countries. I cannot see that the multiplicity of actions at Antwerp adds much to the inconvenience to the defendants. The fact that witnesses are not within the jurisdiction of the English court and may not be compellable to give evidence here is a common enough feature of Admiralty actions. In my view any inconvenience to the defendants here falls far short of oppression or vexation or injustice." </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">He further said that he could not accept that there was no real or substantial advantage to the plaintiff in suing in England. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">I entirely agree with Cairns L.J. that there may be cases where the measure of inconvenience which is caused to a defendant is so great as to amount to oppression. There are very many cases which could be brought either in one jurisdiction or in another. In such cases it could be said that the proceedings within whichever is the chosen jurisdiction are "unnecessarily" brought. But "oppression" is not thereby proved. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The circumstances which determine whether a court has jurisdiction are not those which govern the question whether there should be a stay of proceedings. Only where there is jurisdiction will the decision have to be taken whether an application to stay should be made. But where by the law of a country it is proclaimed that a certain jurisdiction is available and may be "invoked" there will not lightly be a withholding or a withdrawing of that which in the first place is held out. The Admiralty Court is in a somewhat special position because of the existence of maritime liens. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL461"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>461 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Whatever may have been their origin in law the Admiralty Court has exercised the right to arrest a ship on the basis that after an event such as a collision a maritime lien attaches to the offending ship for the damage caused. More strictly perhaps it can be said that the lien attaches to a ship that is alleged to have offended. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The nature of a maritime lien was considered by the Privy Council in <a name="L172"></a><i>The Bold Buccleugh</i> (1851) 7 Moo.P.C.C. 267 on appeal from the High Court of Admiralty. A maritime lien was said to be the foundation of the proceeding in rem a process to make perfect a right inchoate from the moment the lien attaches. The claim or privilege travels with the thing. In <a name="L173"></a><i>Currie v. M'Knight</i> [1897] A.C. 97, the decision in <a name="L174"></a><i>The Bold Buccleugh</i> was approved. Lord Watson described it (p. 106) as a </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">"reasonable and salutary rule that when a ship is so carelessly navigated as to occasion injury to other vessels which are free from blame, the owners of the injured craft should have a remedy against the corpus of the offending ship, ...": </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">see also the judgment of Gorell Barnes J. in <a name="L175"></a><i>The Ripon City</i> [1897] P. 226. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">No suggestion was advanced that it is today no longer necessary and desirable to maintain the long-standing system under which arrest can be made wherever the ship is found. If such suggestion was advanced it would not I think raise a matter for the decision of the judicial authorities. The system has lasted for a very long time and is accepted and recognised. The result is that a ship owner knows that in the course of maritime commerce his ship (if a maritime lien attaches to it) may be liable to arrest in many different places. It follows that the decision as to the place of arrest will be made by someone who is to be plaintiff in the proceedings which will follow. It is natural and inevitable and, indeed, is an inherent feature of the recognised system that a plaintiff will choose the place where he considers that his legitimate interests will be best advanced. A ship owner knows this and expects it just as a potential plaintiff knows it. If a plaintiff chooses to sue in England and becomes enabled and entitled to sue he knows that the proceedings may be stayed but will only be stayed if they are oppressive or harassing or are brought in bad faith and for no legitimate reason. If the law of one country is more favorable than the law of another country, is a plaintiff to be criticised for choosing the former? If because of any one of many features such, for example, as that of time limitation he will win if he goes to one country but lose if he goes to another should he be deprived of his right of choice? It is suggested that the matter should be looked at objectively with the interests of justice as the aim to be achieved. But this is only to side-step the problem. It can be assumed that the court in any country will be animated by a desire to do justice. It can be assumed that the court in any country will do justice according to law. But there may be, and presumably are, variations in the law and practice of different countries. As a result there may be advantage for a plaintiff if he proceeds in one country rather than another. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">It may well be that maritime nations will decide to have some new and common or uniform provisions of law. But so long as they have not, it is inevitable that a plaintiff who has a maritime lien will exercise his rights in </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL462"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>462 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">such manner as he deems best calculated legitimately to advance his interests. All concerned with maritime commerce will know this. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">It is, I think, important to note some of the provisions relating to Admiralty jurisdiction which are contained in the Administration of Justice Act 1956. These were enacted subsequently to an International Convention on Certain Rules Concerning Civil Jurisdiction in Matters of Collision. It is clear from section 1 of the Act of 1956 that included in the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court are claims for damage done by or received by ships "(4) (<i>a</i>) ... whether British or not and whether registered or not and wherever the residence or domicile of their owners may be." Claims "wheresoever arising" are included [section 1 (4) (<i>b</i>) ] . The Act makes provision for the mode of exercise of Admiralty jurisdiction. It recognises the distinction between actions in rem and actions in personam. By section 3 (3), it is recognised that in a case in which there is a maritime lien on a ship the Admiralty jurisdiction may be invoked by an action in rem against that ship. The Admiralty jurisdiction may be invoked by an action in personam but subject to certain limitations. Thus, if there is a claim for damage arising out of a collision between ships (see section 4 (7)) no court in England and Wales can entertain an action in personam unless the defendant has his habitual residence or place of business within England and Wales or unless the cause of action arose within inland waters or the limits of a port or unless an action arising out of the same incident or series of incidents is proceeding in the court or has been heard and determined in the court. It is further provided that no court in England and Wales is to entertain an action in personam to enforce a claim to which section 4 applies until any proceedings previously brought by the plaintiff in any court outside England and Wales against the same defendant in respect of the same incident have been discontinued or ended: see section 4 (2). In section 5 (2), it is provided: </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">"Nothing in this Part of this Act shall be construed as limiting the jurisdiction of the court to refuse to entertain an action for wages by the master or a member of the crew of a ship, not being a British ship." </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">While there is nothing in the Act which limits the power of the Admiralty court to stay an action in rem which is within its jurisdiction so also there is nothing in the Act requiring the court to exercise its power to stay on principles differing from those which had for so many years prior to 1956 been recognised. The authorities which have established those principles may not be binding on this House but they have been consistent in what they have laid down and have for long been accepted. Particularly in reference to a court whose doors have been held widely open to those concerned in international maritime trade I consider that if any change is to be made it should be made by some process other than that of judicial pronouncement. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">For the reasons which I have given I would dismiss the appeal. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">LORD WILBERFORCE. My Lords, at first instance, Brandon J. held that, so far as convenience was concerned, the Commercial Court of Antwerp was by far the more appropriate forum to try the claim in this action. This holding was justified by the following facts: </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL463"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>463 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Lord Wilberforce </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">1. The collision took place in a channel of the River Schelde leading to the port of Antwerp. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">2. Four other proceedings arising out of the collision were pending before the Commercial Court of Antwerp. [A fifth action has been begun there by the respondents, in order to preserve the time limit.] </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">3. A court surveyor appointed by the Commercial Court of Antwerp, on the application of the respondent, had made a comprehensive report on he collision: the surveyor soon after the event interviewed all witnesses directly or indirectly involved: he took a number of statements which are set out in the report. The respondent was represented by a Belgian lawyer before the surveyor: there is a right, which was exercised, to cross-examine witnesses. Normally this report would be considered at a court hearing in the Commercial Court of Antwerp but only, of course, if proceedings were brought by a claimant. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">4. The rights and liabilities of those involved depend, at least in part, on Belgian law and port regulations. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">In addition: </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">5. Neither the <i>Atlantic Star</i> nor the <i>Bona Spes</i> is British or British owned - both are Dutch vessels, owned by Dutch nationals. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">6. The only connection of any element in the action with England is that the present suit was begun in rem against the <i>Atlantic Star</i> when the vessel was expected in Liverpool. She would no doubt have been arrested if the appellants had not given a guarantee of £80,000 for the respondent's claim. I shall comment later upon this aspect of the matter, and upon the nature of the advantage to the respondent of continuing the action here. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The case for staying this English action and remitting the respondent to his remedy in Antwerp is therefore a strong one. If the question whether it should be stayed is a matter of judicial discretion, there would seem to be very good reasons for doing so. So the first question must be whether the discretion exists, and if so whether it is a free discretion or one limited in any way by any rule of law. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">I dispose first of some arguments which, if accepted, might exclude the discretion. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">1. The jurisdiction of the High Court in Admiralty matters is now governed by the Administration of Justice Act 1956. This Act re-states, but does not, as I understand it, in any respect relevant to the present issue, extend the previous law as stated in the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1925. It confers jurisdiction to entertain actions in rem in respect of damage done by a ship whether the defendant ship is British or not and wherever the residence or domicile of its owners may be. It refers (section 3 (3)) to cases where there is a maritime lien (the present is such a case) and provides that in such a case the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court "may be invoked" by an action in rem against the ship in question. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The Act thus establishes beyond question the court's jurisdiction, i.e., power to try the suit. In my opinion, it does no more. It does not oblige the court to I proceed with any case: it does not affect any matter of procedure, nor in terms or by implication affect the court's power, inherent or statutory, to stay proceedings. It leaves the court, as it was under the Act of 1925, and as it was before the Act of 1925, master of its own procedure: it imposes no fetter upon any discretion it may have. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL464"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>464 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Lord Wilberforce </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">2. Reference was made in argument and in the judgments of the Court of Appeal to an international convention signed at Brussels on May 10, 1952, concerning civil jurisdiction in matters of collision. It seems clear that the Act of 1956 was passed in order, in certain respects, (e.g. clause 3 (4)) to employment this convention. There is no question here of referring to the text of the convention in order to interpret the Act: the terms of the Act are clear, and I have dealt with them. And the convention has no independent relevance in this case. It does not represent, or constitute, customary international law: it is a limited agreement between its parties. It has no legal effect in a private suit in England except so far as incorporated in our law. Even if it could be looked at, it could not avail the respondent who is a citizen of the Netherlands, not a party to the convention: and, though Belgium is a party, no Belgian subject is concerned in the action. I shall make no further reference to this convention. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">There is one other preliminary matter of importance. Reference was made to the Scottish doctrine of forum non convenience. This is a doctrine of general application in Scotland, which has been validated in this House: <a name="L176"></a><i>SociŽtŽ du Gaz de Paris v. La SociŽtŽ Anonyme de Navigation "Les Armateurs Franais,"</i> 1926 S.C.(H.L.) 13. A similar doctrine has gained acceptance in the United States of America with the authority of the Supreme Court - see <a name="L177"></a><i>Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert</i> doing business as Gilbert Storage & Transfer Co. (1947) 330 U.S. 501, and, in an international matter, <a name="L178"></a><i>Canada Malting Co. Ltd. v. Paterson Steamships Ltd.</i> (1932) 285 U.S. 413. We were urged to take this opportunity to bring English law into line with these legal systems and hold "forum non convenience" to be a plea available in England. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">My Lords, I am of opinion that this is a course which we cannot take. It is clear, from decisions to which I shall refer, that for some 100 years the law of England has taken a divergent path with its own rules, defined and adjusted in numerous cases, some of high authority. This same path has been followed in other Commonwealth jurisdictions - Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand. The arguments in favour of "forum non convenience" as a general rule are not so overwhelming that we should now make a radical change of direction: indeed there is much to be said for the English rule, provided that it is not too rigidly applied. I would not therefore favour accepting the radical solution. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">I now examine the English rules in this matter: the governing statement at the present time is contained in the well known judgment of Scott L.J. in <a name="L179"></a><i>St. Pierre v. South American Stores (Gath & Chaves) Ltd.</i> [1936] 1 K.B. 382, 398, which I shall quote later. There is a danger, as with all clear propositions, of this receiving quasi-statutory force, and of the key words "oppressive" and "vexatious" being too rigidly construed and applied. I do not think that these are technical words: they can only be understood against an evolutionary background. It is not necessary to go back much more than 100 years. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Of the early cases before the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873, it is only useful to cite the decision of this House in <a name="L180"></a><i>Carron Iron Co. v. Maclaren</i> (1855) 5 H.L.Cas. 416. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">This was concerned with a subject matter very different from the present and suitable enough for chauvinistic treatment, namely, an administration </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL465"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>465 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Lord Wilberforce </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">action in the English Chancery Court, the question being whether an injunction should be granted against the appellant, a Scottish company, restraining proceedings in Scotland. Sir John Romilly M.R. had granted an injunction but this was set aside by a majority in this House. The reasons given were, in general terms, that where there is litigation here, in which complete relief may be given, it may be vexatious for a party to commence foreign proceedings and he may be restrained from continuing them: but that this is not necessarily so in every case. Lord Cranworth L.C. at p. 438, refers to interfering: </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">"on principles of convenience, to prevent litigation, which it [was] considered to be either unnecessary, and therefore vexatious, or ... ill-adapted to secure complete justice," </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">but recognizing that there were limits to this principle he set the injunction aside, and Lord Brougham agreed. Lord St. Lanyards, dissenting, argued for a wider rule, that the court has power to act as the ends of justice require, and with that view to order parties to take or omit to take any steps and proceedings in any other court of justice, whether in this or in a foreign country. If this argument had prevailed, English law might have developed closer to the Scottish doctrine of forum non convenience: but it was not the view of the House and was not taken up in later authorities. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Before the next important decision there was passed the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873. That Act (section 24 (5)) removed the power to restrain proceedings before the High Court by injunction, but in the same subsection recognised the courts' inherent power to stay. The terms in which it did so are of interest: </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">"... nothing in this Act contained shall disable [the court] from directing a stay of proceedings in any cause or matter pending before it if it shall think fit; and any person, ... who would have been entitled, if this Act had not passed, to apply to any court to restrain the prosecution thereof, ... shall be at liberty to apply ... for a stay of proddings in such cause or matter, either generally, or so far as may be necessary for the purposes of justice; ..." </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The Act, further, provided in a Schedule initial rules of court which were to take effect until altered under power conferred by the Act. The initial rules contained no reference to vexation or oppression in relation to the court's power to stay. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The form of section 24 (5) was evidently such as to secure that whatever special powers might be defined by rules of court, the inherent and general power of the High Court to stay proceedings should remain. This has been generally accepted since 1873. Section 24 (5) has itself been replaced by section 41 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925, which is in similar form: and though there is now in the rules a provision relating to cases of vexation or oppression it has never been contended that the power of the court to stay is limited to such cases. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The leading case of <a name="L181"></a><i>McHenry v. Lewis</i> (1882) 21 Ch.D. 202; 22 Ch.D. 397 was decided against this background. There was an application to stay proceedings in this country during the pendency of two other actions, one in England brought by a different plaintiff, one in America </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL466"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>466 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Lord Wilberforce </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">brought by the same plaintiff jointly with another person. The Court of Appeal dealt with it as a matter of general jurisdiction and refused to stay tho English action. Each member of the distinguished Court of Appeal is found using the word "vexatious" but as a word of illustration rather than limitation: for the widest range of considerations is taken into account and carefully weighed. Bowen L.J.'s words are well known and, to my mind, sum up the basis of the decision (22 Ch.D. 397, 407): </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">"... it would be most unwise, unless one was actually driven to do so for the purpose of deciding this case, to lay down any definition of what is vexatious or oppressive, or to draw a circle, so to speak, round this court unnecessarily, and to say that it will not move outside it. ... they [vexation and oppression] must vary with the circumstances of each case." </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">All the Lords Justices emphasise that there is power to stay an English action, if there is concurrent litigation abroad - Bowen L.J. at p. 409 says that the court could do it "if necessary for the purposes of justice," - but the jurisdiction is to be exercised cautiously - special circumstances must exist. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">It is obvious that this important case depends upon a principle quite distinct from "forum non convenience." It recognises an exceptional power capable of being described by reference to "vexation" and "oppression" but shows that these words are to be widely interpreted in relation to the circumstances and in the light of the fact that the court's discretion is general. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">In 1883 the Court of Appeal again considered the matter: <a name="L182"></a><i>Peruvian Guano Co. v. Bockwoldt,</i> 23 Ch.D. 225. This was an action in England by an English company for delivery of the cargoes of seven ships or damages, and another action in France by the same plaintiff in relation to six of the same ships. The defendants were French. The court refused to stay the English suit so far as it related to the six ships, the subject of the French action. Sir George Jessel M.R., at p. 230, found "substantial reasons of benefit" to the plaintiff for bringing the two actions. Bowen L.J. said, at p. 234, that there was no precedent for preventing double litigation when the double litigation has no element of oppression other than that an action was going on abroad which would give other or additional remedies beyond those attainable in England. And he said this, at p. 233: </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">"When a plaintiff comes into an English court he asks for justice. The court is bound therefore not to refuse to hear his case, or to put him under difficulties in the way of having his action brought to a conclusion. Of course that rule does not mean that a plaintiff, under the pretence of asking for justice, is to do that which is oppressive and vexatious, and the courts have always at common law, with which I am more familiar, and no doubt in equity also, interfered to prevent a plaintiff under colour of asking for justice from harassing others. Therefore, when that which he is asking for is frivolous, or sometimes when he is asking for it in a way which necessarily involves injustice, the courts have interfered." </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">It is quite certain that, in these words, he had no intention of going beyond what he had said in <a name="L183"></a><i>McHenry v. Lewis,</i> 22 Ch.D. 397 or placing </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL467"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>467 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Lord Wilberforce </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">any more weight or meaning upon the words "oppressive" and "vexatious" than he had previously done. These cases, together with <a name="L184"></a><i>Hyman v. Helm</i> (1883) 24 Ch.D. 531, which I need not cite, gave a firm direction to the law, so that citation of many subsequent cases would be superfluous. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">I mention one other before coming to the St. Pierre case [1936] 1 K.B. 382. In <a name="L185"></a><i>Logan v. Bank of Scotland (No. 2)</i> [1906] 1 K.B. 141, the cases cited were applied as between England and Scotland. The transactions in issue took place in Scotland and all the parties, except one defendant, resided in Scotland. The necessary evidence would have to be obtained from Scotland. A stay of the English action was sought on the ground, it appears, of vexation and oppression, and was granted by the Court of Appeal. Sir Gorell Barnes P. in his judgment referred to the Scottish doctrine of forum non convenience and expressed the opinion that, as such, this was not followed in England. The English rule he stated in the following words, at p. 150: </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">"The English courts are freely open to persons foreign to this country seeking to enforce their rights against our corporations, companies and citizens, in cases in which the courts can properly exercise jurisdiction, but, while I think we ought to be careful not to check this freedom, I am of opinion that we ought not to allow this hospitality to be abused. ... The court should, on the one hand, see clearly that in stopping an action it does not do injustice, and, on the other hand, I think the court ought to interfere whenever there is such vexation and oppression that the defendant who objects to the exercise of the jurisdiction would be subjected to such injustice that he ought not to be sued in the court in which the action is brought, to which injustice he would not be subjected if the action were brought in another accessible and competent court." </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The <a name="L186"></a><i>St. Pierre</i> case <a name="L187"></a><i>(St. Pierre v. South American Stores (Gath & Chaves) Ltd.</i> [1936] 1 K.B. 382) arose out of a lease of land in Chile. The defendants were English companies, one trading in Chile, the other in Argentina. One or both of these had started proceedings in Chile against the plaintiffs raising the same issue as arose in England: the defendants applied for a stay of the English action. This was refused. The judgment of Scott L.J. contains the well known passage which, at this stage, it may be convenient to quote, at p. 398: </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">"The true rule about a stay under section 41, so far as relevant to this case, may I think be stated thus: (1) A mere balance of convenience is not a sufficient ground for depriving a plaintiff of the advantages of prosecuting his action in an English court if it is otherwise properly brought. The right of access to the King's court must not be lightly refused. (2) In order to justify a stay two conditions must be satisfied, one positive and the other negative: (<i>a</i>) the defendant must satisfy the court that the continuance of the action would work an injustice because it would be oppressive ar vexatious to him or would be an abuse of the process of the court in some other way; and (<i>b</i>) the stay must not cause an injustice to the plaintiff. On both the burden of proof is on the defendant. These propositions are, I think, consistent with and supported by the following cases: </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL468"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>468 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Lord Wilberforce </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><a name="L188"></a><i>McHenry v. Lewis,</i> 22 Ch.D. 397; <a name="L189"></a><i>Peruvian Guano Co. v. Bockwoldt,</i> 23 Ch.D. 225; <a name="L190"></a><i>Hyman v. Helm,</i> 24 Ch.D. 531; <a name="L191"></a><i>Thornton v. Thornton,</i> 11 P.D. 176; and <a name="L192"></a><i>Logan v. Bank of Scotland (No. 2)</i> [1906] 1 K.B. 141, 150, 151." </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">This clear and emphatic statement has proved its usefulness over the years. It has been applied by judges, without difficulty, to a large variety of cases. I should be most reluctant, even if I were capable, of replacing it by some wider and more general principle. But too close and rigid an application of it may defeat the spirit which lies behind it. And this is particularly true of the words "oppressive" and "vexatious." These words are not statutory words: as I hope to have shown from earlier cases, they are descriptive words which illustrate but do not confine the courts' general jurisdiction. They are pointers rather than boundary marks. They are capable of a strict, or technical application: conversely, if this House thinks fit, and as I think they should, they can in the future be interpreted more liberally. In my opinion, the passage cited embodies the following principles - all of which have been discussed in earlier authorities. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">First, a plaintiff should not lightly be denied the right to sue in an English court, if jurisdiction is properly founded. The right is not absolute. The courts are open, even to actions between foreigners, relating to foreign matters. But they retain a residual power to stay their proceedings. I may add that, in relation, inter alia, to Admiralty suits, the existence of this power has been explicitly affirmed in the United States of America. Mr. Benedict, a writer of acknowledged authority, says: </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">"Admiralty courts have jurisdiction of Admiralty suits entirely between foreigners when proper service can be had or property attached, but it is discretionary with the court whether it will accept such jurisdiction or not." </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">(<i>The Law of American Admiralty,</i> ed. Knauth (1940), vol. 1, p. 260 and footnote.) The judgment of Brandeis J. in <a name="L193"></a><i>Canada Malting Co. Ltd. v. Paterson Steamships Ltd.,</i> 285 U.S. 413 supports this with several judicial citations. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Secondly, in considering whether a stay should be granted the court must take into account (i) any advantage to the plaintiff; (ii) any disadvantage to the defendant: this is the critical equation, and in some cases it will be a difficult one to establish. Generally this is done by an instinctive process - that is what discretion, in its essence, is. But there are perhaps some elements which it is possible to disengage and make explicit. In the first place, I do not think it would be right to say that arty advantage to the plaintiff is sufficient to prevent a defendant from obtaining a stay. The cases say that the advantage must not be "fanciful" - that a "substantial advantage" is enough. I do not even think that one can say that the advantage must be substantive (i.e. in the existence in English law of some more favorable substantive rules than would apply elsewhere) rather than adjectival, though more weight might be given to the former. An example given by Lord Denning M.R. illustrates this: a motor collision in Italy between two Italian citizens, one of whom catches the other here and sues him. Lord Denning M.R. says that this would be purely Italian and so </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL469"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>469 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Lord Wilberforce </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">(inferentially) should be stayed. But if this is right, it must follow that advantage to a plaintiff is not in itself decisive for the suit may well have been brought here because our courts give higher damages, or damages under broader heads: so if a stay is to be granted it must be because the court can additionally consider the nature of the case, and the disadvantage to the defendant. A bona fide advantage to a plaintiff is a solid weight in the scale, often a decisive weight, but not always so. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Then the disadvantage to the defendant: to be taken into account at all this must be serious, more than mere disadvantage of multiple suits; to prevail against the plaintiff's advantage, still more substantial - how much more depending how great the latter may be. The words "oppressive" or "vexatious" point this up as indicative of the degree and character of the prejudice that must be shown. I think too that there must be a relative element in assessing both advantage and disadvantage - relative to the individual circumstances of the plaintiff and defendant. This was certainly a factor in the marginal case of <a name="L194"></a><i>Devine v. Cementation Co. Ltd.</i> [1963] N.I. 65 and without it, the case could hardly be supported. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">How, then, should these principles be applied to the present case? Before I attempt to apply them I must consider whether there is any special factor relevant to the Admiralty jurisdiction which should impose some modification on the general rule. There are several points to bear in mind. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">First, the Admiralty court in this country is one with a long history and a wide international reputation. It is one to which resort is made from all over the world in matters having no intrinsic connection with England. The proportion (we were supplied with figures researched by counsel) of purely foreign suits which it entertains is substantial. It is a forum of choice often selected by parties to contracts: it is accustomed to applying foreign law, it is well-equipped to take expert advice which itself has a high repute. While all of these considerations still obtain today, there are now in existence, in other maritime countries, courts with Admiralty jurisdiction with comparable, if not equal, experience and I think it would be right that weight should be given to this when one of such courts is presented as the alternative forum. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Secondly, there has not been brought to notice any case - at least of an action in rem - where, in a case where foreign proceedings are pending, and the plaintiff in one suit is defendant in the other, a stay has been granted. A list of cases to the contrary includes well known cases: <a name="L195"></a><i>The Janera</i> [1928] P. 55; <a name="L196"></a><i>The London</i> [1931] P. 14; <a name="L197"></a><i>The Madrid</i> [1937] P. 40; <a name="L198"></a><i>The Quo Vadis</i> [1951] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 425; <a name="L199"></a><i>The Monte Urbasa</i> [1953] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 587; <a name="L200"></a><i>The Lucile Bloomfield</i> [1964] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 324 and <a name="L201"></a><i>The Soya Magareta</i> [1961] 1 W.L.R. 709. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">These instances are impressive, but they are instances. More than one of them recognises the existence of the discretion to stay (cf. <a name="L202"></a><i>The London, The Quo Vadis, The Lucile Bloomfield:</i> "the court must weigh the equities, not only on one side, but on both sides" <i>per</i> Hewson J. [1964] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 324, 329). I do not find either in their facts or in any statement of principle in them a general rule which would cover this case. But they do vouch the proposition that a very clear case is needed to justify a stay, </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL470"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>470 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Lord Wilberforce </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">where a plaintiff is (properly as to jurisdiction) suing here and that the mere fact that there are proceedings abroad is not enough. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Thirdly, the present case, as many other Admiralty suits, is an action in rem, with a view to arrest. It is a case in which, by virtue of the collision, a maritime lien exists on his ship. These circumstances, it is said, provide a strong reason for retaining the action in the English court: they provide, in themselves, a strong point of connection with an English forum. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">My Lords, I have no doubt that in many, if not most, cases, this argument would be a sound one. The reason, normally, for bringing proceedings in rem here is, by means of the procedure of arrest, to obtain security for the claim. But I do not regard it as conclusive in every case. The right to bring an action in rem in England is by statute conferred in the same terms as the right to bring any other type of action - by the use of the facultative "may" (Administration of Justice Act 1956, section 3 (3)). The Act confers jurisdiction but the residual right to decline to exercise it always remains. If the object of suing here is to obtain security, it could hardly be denied that this was an "advantage" which a plaintiff can legitimately seek, and which it would be an injustice to deny. But in the present case this is not so. The defendants, owners of the <i>Atlantic Star.</i>are the Holland America Line, one of the leading shipping enterprises, located in the Netherlands, whose ships, including the <i>Atlantic Star</i> itself, sail into Antwerp as frequently as any claimant against them could desire. A contention that it was necessary, or even advantageous, to wait for a sailing to England in order to get security here would be hollow, indeed almost disingenuous, and the respondent does not make it. Instead he takes the point - a technical on - that the English court cannot take any notice of the fact that an undertaking to provide security, which undoubtedly would be adequate, in Antwerp was offered after the issue of the writ. But this point fails because there is no doubt, in my opinion, that the courts in considering a stay, looks at the state of the matter as at the date of consideration (cf. <a name="L203"></a><i>The Janera</i> [1928] P. 55, 57). </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">So I do not think that, in the circumstances of this case, which may be exceptional, the nature of the action adds anything of weight to the arguments against a stay of proceedings. Where, then does the balance lie, on the equation as I have stated? On the plaintiff's side, beyond the initial fact - which always requires displacement - that he is suing here in a court whose doors are open to him, there is beyond his ipse digit no demonstrated advantage. As regards security, he will have all that he needs if he sues in Antwerp. He cannot point to any real, solid, advantage, procedural or substantive, in suing here. He says - or it is said in support of his case - that by suing here he will get the advantage of English procedure - oral, adversary, experienced. But beyond the fact that this may be different from Belgian procedure and that our courts have confidence in their own, there is nothing solid here. It may well be that to sue in Belgium may be cheaper and speedier: an English trial will not happen till years after the event: some witnesses may be unavailable. As to substantive law some suggestion was made that, by suing here, the plaintiff would be able to take advantage of a presumption which arises when a ship in motion collides with a ship at anchor. But it was not shown that this "presumption" after all a matter of common sense - would </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL471"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>471 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Lord Wilberforce </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">not be taken account of in Belgium. In final analysis, the "advantage" to the plaintiff comes to nothing more than a hope that in an English court he might stand a better chance of winning than, in the face of the surveyor's report, he would stand in Belgium. There is nothing wrong with this. As Lord Esher M.R. said in <a name="L204"></a><i>The Reinbeck</i> (1889) 6 Asp.M.L.C. 366, 368 you may expect men of business to act as such, in a good stand-up fight. But one must weigh the considerations on the other side. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">I need not repeat the latter - they are disadvantages real and strong. The defendants, certainly are a powerful company, which on any result can support financial detriment. But I do not think that to compel them to submit to proceedings here, starting, after a long interval, from the beginning with undoubted difficulty of obtaining witnesses, after they have been exposed on the respondent's application to a full inquiry in Belgium and, if both actions proceed, with the risk of conflicting decisions in the two courts, is essentially just. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">I would allow the appeal. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">LORD SIMON OF GLAISDALE. My Lords, I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech prepared by my noble and learned friend, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest. I agree with it so entirely that I add a few words of my own only because of the importance of the issue before your Lordships - your Lordships being invited to interfere with the basis of jurisdiction of the English Admiralty court, one of the most famous and historic courts in the world and one of international jurisdiction not only by public law but also by general commercial recourse: </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">(1) Your Lordships are here faced with two irreconcilable, and each entirely respectable, legal stances; though, since every obverse has its reverse, each has concomitant disadvantages. On the one hand, there is the principle of forum convenience. According to this doctrine, whatever the law may say about jurisdiction, the parties will be compelled, through the court's exercise of its inherent or statutory power to stay proceedings, to litigate in the forum which in all the circumstances seems to the court the most appropriate one. On the other, there is the doctrine that, if a court has jurisdiction which is invoked by a plaintiff, it will not deny him justice. (2) The former doctrine - that of the forum conveniences apparently part of Scots and U.S. law; and it obviously has much to be said for it. The latter doctrine - that a plaintiff who founds jurisdiction will not be denied a hearing unless he is misusing the forensic process so as to perpetrate injustice - has also much to be said for it; and it is clearly the doctrine established in English law. It may, indeed, be merely a particular application of the promise made at Runnymede that "to no one will We deny justice." (It would be an inadequate performance of such a promise to say, "You can get perfectly satisfactory justice elsewhere.") </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">(3) "Forum-shopping" is a dirty word; but it is only a pejorative way of saying that, if you offer a plaintiff a choice of jurisdictions, he will naturally choose the one in which he thinks his case can be most favorably presented: this should be a matter neither for surprise nor for indignation. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">(4) English courts are normally confined to examining the statutes giving effect to a treaty or international convention, and precluded from scrutinising the treaty itself. But where public policy and international committee are </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL472"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>472 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Lord Simon of Glaisdale </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">involved (as they were here by the appellants, in their endeavour to persuade your Lordships to depart from the rule of English law heretofore established and accepted), it is permissible (indeed, incumbent) to examine our formal international obligations. As Lord Atkin said in <a name="L205"></a><i>The Arantzazu Mendi</i> [1939] A.C. 256, 264: "Our State cannot speak with two voices ... the judiciary saying one thing, the executive another." (Though Lord Atkin was speaking of recognition of foreign sovereignty, his observations must be of general application with a unitary state in cases such as the instant: see <a name="L206"></a><i>Adams v. Adams (Attorney-General intervening)</i> [1971] P. 188, 198C.) </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">(5) Article 1 of the International Convention on Certain Rules Concerning Civil Jurisdiction in Matters of Collision, signed at Brussels on May 10, 1952, by a number of states, including Great Britain and Belgium, reads as follows: </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">"(1) An action for collision occurring between sea-going vessels, or between sea-going vessels and inland navigation craft, can only be introduced: (<i>a</i>) either before the court where the defendant has his habitual residence or a place of business; (<i>b</i>) or before the court of the place where arrest has been effected of the defendant ship or of any other ship belonging to the defendant which can be lawfully arrested, or where arrest could have been effected and bail or other security has been furnished; (<i>c</i>) or before the court of the place of collision when the collision has occurred within the limits of a port or inland waters. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p style="text-indent: 3%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">"(2) It shall be for the plaintiff to decide in which of the courts referred to in (1) of this article, the action shall be instituted. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p style="text-indent: 3%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">"(3) A claimant shall not be allowed to bring a further action against the same defendant on the same facts in another jurisdiction, without discontinuing an action already instituted." </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">(6) This country duly ratified the 1952 convention; and was thereupon bound to give effect to it in municipal legislation. This was done by the Administration of Justice Act 1956. All that the Act of 1956 had to do (and did) in this respect was to confine the English Admiralty jurisdiction in personam so as to conform with article 1 (1) (<i>a</i>) and (<i>c</i>) of the convention (section 4) and to extend the English Admiralty jurisdiction in rem to a sister ship in accordance with article 1 (1) (<i>b</i>) of the convention (section 3 (4) (<i>b</i>)). </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">(7) To covenant in article 1 (2) that it shall be for the <i>plaintiff</i> to decide in which of the various courts open to him the action shall be instituted, and then to proceed to stay his action if he chooses the one most convenient to himself but not to every one else, is to take back with one hand what we are by international treaty bound to give him with the other. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">(8) Ships are elusive. The power to arrest in any port and found thereon an action in rem is increasingly required with the custom of ships being owned singly and sailing under flags of convenience. A large tanker may by negligent navigation cause extensive damage to beaches or to other shipping: she will take very good care to keep out of the ports of the "convenient" forum. If the aggrieved party manages to arrest her elsewhere, it will be said forcibly (as the appellants say here): "The defendant </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL473"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>473 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Lord Simon of Glaisdale </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">has no sort of connection with the forum except that she was arrested within its jurisdiction." But that will frequently be the only way of securing justice. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">(9) "Forum-shopping" is, indeed, inescapably involved with the concept of maritime lien and the action in rem. Every port is automatically an admiralty emporium. This may be very inconvenient to some defendants, but the system has unquestionably proved itself on the whole as an instrument of justice. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">(10) If, as I believe, English law does not know the doctrine of forum convenience, but rather allows any plaintiff bona fide seeking relief to have unrestricted access to the seat of judgment, it would, in my respectful submission, be wrong to hinder such access by marginal alteration of the criteria hitherto prevailing. That would be to admit by the back door a rule that your Lordships consider cannot be welcomed at the front. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">(11) My own view is, I confess, that the rule which, as my noble and learned friend, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, has shown, is firmly established in English law is, on balance, the one best suited to general advantage and justice. But, certainly, it has sufficient to commend it, it is so firmly settled, and it is so intricately involved with this country's international obligations, that, if it is to be changed, it must be for Parliament and not for the courts to make the change. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">I would therefore dismiss the appeal. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">LORD KILBRANDON. My Lords, I have had the advantage of reading the speech prepared by my noble and learned friend, Lord Wilberforce, with which I entirely agree: it is therefore not necessary that I should give my views at length. First, the circumstances in which the application for an order to stay is made must be briefly set outage because it is upon their distinctive character that the decision will depend. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">As a consequence of a collision in the River Schelde between the ship Atlantic Star (the appellants), and two moored barges, the Bona Spay (the respondents), and the Hugo van der Goes, all Dutch vessels, there are now pending the following actions against the Atlantic Star: </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">A. In the Commercial Court at Antwerp: </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="10%"></td><td width="88%"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td class="clsN1">(i)</td><td class="clsN1"> </td><td class="clsN1" width="100%"><p align="justify">By the owners of the <i>Hugo van der Goes;</i></p></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td class="clsN1">(ii)</td><td class="clsN1"> </td><td class="clsN1" width="100%"><p align="justify">By the cargo (part) of the <i>Hugo van der Goes;</i></p></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td class="clsN1">(iii)</td><td class="clsN1"> </td><td class="clsN1" width="100%"><p align="justify">By the dependants of certain deceased members of the crew of the <i>Hugo van der Goes;</i></p></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td class="clsN1">(iv)</td><td class="clsN1"> </td><td class="clsN1" width="100%"><p align="justify">By the cargo of the <i>Bona Spes;</i></p></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td class="clsN1">(v)</td><td class="clsN1"> </td><td class="clsN1" width="100%"><p align="justify">By the owners of the <i>Bona Spes;</i></p></td></tr></tbody></table></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">B. In the High Court in London: </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="10%"></td><td width="88%"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td class="clsN1">(i)</td><td class="clsN1"> </td><td class="clsN1" width="100%"><p align="justify">By the owners of the <i>Bona Spes.</i></p></td></tr></tbody></table></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">It is agreed that action A (v) was brought after B (i), but only in order to protect the plaintiff against the running of the Belgian time limitation, and that, should B (i) be allowed to proceed, A (v) will be abandoned. Actions A (i) to A (iv) cannot be abandoned with a view to the claims in them being adjudicated in London, since they are now time-barred here. So they will in any event have to go on in Antwerp. As between the respondent and the appellants, the Belgian and the British courts have unimpeachable </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL474"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>474 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Lord Kilbrandon </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">jurisdiction, the former arising from the place of the accident, the latter in consequence of the <i>Atlantic Star</i> having given bail in order to avoid arrest. No doubt all the actions could also have been prosecuted in the courts of the Netherlands, the forum of the owners of the <i>Atlantic Star,</i> the Holland America Line. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">One other feature must be mentioned because it is important. On January 29, 1970, that is, two days after the accident, the <i>Hugo van der Goes</i> made application to the Commercial Court at Antwerp for the appointment of a surveyor. This functionary, an experienced master mariner, is charged with the duty of investigating the circumstances of an accident, with the assistance of legal representatives of those who have been concerned in it, who have the right to question in his presence witnesses who may be called by him in order to give evidence as to what happened. A day or two later the respondent, in ignorance that a prior application had already been made, also applied for a surveyor to be appointed. The consequence was that the surveyor, Captain Van Clemen, made a full and careful investigation, in which the legal advisers to the present parties were participants, and reported to the Commercial Court his conclusions, including those concerning salvage, on February 23, 1971 (Appendix p. 19), that is within one year and one month of the accident. The affidavit evidence of Belgian law leads us to understand that, if the experience of precedent is a guide, it is probable that the Commercial Court at Antwerp will accept the opinion arrived at by the surveyor. That opinion appears to be favorable to the <i>Atlantic Star.</i></font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Ignoring action A (v), which, if the stay asked for is refused, is of an ephemeral character, it will be seen that in all but a technical sense the merits of the dispute between the present parties are the subject matter of lis alibi pendens - but not technically so, since that subject matter is to be debated alibi between non-identical parties. There has thus been set up the possibility, if not the probability, of contradictory decisions being arrived at on the same facts in two different courts of competent jurisdiction: the mere statement of that situation should be enough to invite the contemplation of some remedy for it. The question is, should the action B (i) be stayed to await the decision of the Antwerp actions? </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">It is with such cases of double, or multiple, jurisdiction as this that the plea of forum non convenience is concerned in some jurisdictions. The idea lying behind the plea is that it is desirable, in such circumstances, to find some way of reconciling the general rule that, jurisdiction being for any reason exercisable by a particular court, the judge of that court cannot refuse to exercise it, with another general rule, that the plaintiff ought to pursue the defendant in the court to which the defendant is normally subject, possibly because of his physical presence within reach of the judge's arm, or perhaps ratione domicillii. Obviously this conflict is likely to occur where one of the competing, jurisdictions has been constituted in some court which would have had no jurisdiction over the defendant but for some special power conferred through the presence of his property within the jurisdiction. Examples are, by arrestment ad fundandem jurisdiction em in Scotland, or, in the several countries in which such a procedure is competent, arrestment in rem to found jurisdiction against a ship, and thus against her owners. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL475"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>475 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Lord Kilbrandon </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Since the plea of forum non convenience is familiar more in Scotland than in England, it was inevitable that your Lordships should have had a full explanation of its use in the former system. I do not think it is necessary to examine the Scottish practice in detail, since I am satisfied that it has not been adopted as part of the law of England. In <a name="L207"></a><i>Sim v. Robin ow (1892)</i> 19 R. 665, Lord Kinnear, in a widely quoted passage at p. 668, after pointing out that the court would not refuse to exercise its jurisdiction "upon the ground of a mere balance of convenience and inconvenience," went on to say that "the plea can never be sustained unless the court is satisfied that there is some other tribunal, having competent jurisdiction, in which the case may be tried more suitably for the interests of all the parties and for the ends of justice." In <a name="L208"></a><i>SociŽtŽ du Gaz de Paris v. La SociŽtŽ Anonyme de Navigation "Les Armateurs Franais,"</i> 1926 S.C. (H.L.) 13, Lord Sumner put the rule rather differently, in what may now be taken to be its authoritative form, when he said, at p. 22: </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">"I do not see how one can guide oneself profitably by endeavoring to conciliate and promote the interests of both these antagonists, except in that ironical sense, in which one says that it is in the interests of both that the case should be tried in the best way and in the best tribunal, and that the best man should win. The real proposition is, I think, that the court has to consider how best the ends of justice in the case in question and on the facts before it, so far as they can be measured in advance, can be respectively ascertained and served. ... The object, under the words 'forum non convenience' is to find that forum which is the more suitable for the ends of justice, and is preferable because pursuit of the litigation in that forum is more likely to secure those ends." </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">And in the same case Lord Dunedin, at p. 18, pointed out that the proper translation of "convenience" was not "convenient" but "appropriate." One can, I think leave the Scottish law by expressing the opinion that, on the additional authority of <a name="L209"></a><i>Sheaf Steamship Co. Ltd. v. Company Transmediterranea,</i> 1930 S.C. 660, there is no doubt that the Court of Session would sustain the plea on facts identical with those in the present case. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">There may, however, be a good reason for a significant difference between the two practices. In a large proportion of the cases in Scotland in which the plea has been taken, the case has come before the Scottish court by the exercise of what is widely regarded as an exorbitant jurisdiction, namely, that founded by arresting the moveable property in Scotland of a foreigner. The <a name="L210"></a><i>SociŽtŽ du Gaz,</i> 1926 S.C.(H.L.) 13 although an Admiralty action was such a case. When that jurisdiction is exercised, there may be the greater need for care lest injustice be done by overriding another campy tent and appropriate court. In fact, the plea of forum non convenience is always, in Scotland, the appropriate plea, and lis alibi pen dens is inappropriate, where the competing forum is a foreign court - <a name="L211"></a><i>Martin v. Stopford-Blair's Executors</i> (1879) 7 R. 329 <i>per</i> Lord President Inglis at p. 331. I have also been struck by the fact that a doctrine somewhat resembling the Scottish is applied by the English courts when they in their turn are exercising an exorbitant jurisdiction, namely, that under R.S.C., Ord. 11, </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL476"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>476 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Lord Kilbrandon </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">r. 4 (3) provides that on an application to serve in Scotland or Northern Ireland, if it appears to the court that there may be a concurrent remedy there, the court in deciding whether to grant leave, shall have regard to the comparative cost and convenience of proceeding there or in England. But the Admiralty jurisdiction in rem founded by arrestment of a ship, or substituted bail, is not exorbitant; it is widely recognised and is accepted in international agreements. This may be a distinction which justifies a greater reluctance in the English than in the Scottish courts to defer, by staying or dismissal of an action in rem, to another competent forum. It can also be argued that the liberality of the Scottish procedure may as easily lead to injustice as may an insistence on a more chauvinistic attitude; an example is perhaps <a name="L212"></a><i>Williamson v. North-Eastern Railway Co.</i> (1884) 11 R. 596. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The courts of the United States appear more favorably disposed to the plea than do the English. Frankfurter J in <a name="L213"></a><i>Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. Kepner</i> (1941) 314 U.S. 44, 55-56 described it as a "manifestation of a civilised judicial system ... firmly embedded in our law" - cited in <i>Anton on Private International Law,</i> p. 149. Comparably wide general language was used in the latest U.S. case cited to us: <a name="L214"></a><i>The Chaparral</i> [1972] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 315. This case dealt with a forum selection clause in a towage contract, not with a plea of forum non convenience. The contract provided for disputes to be decided in London: the incident between tug, a German vessel, and tow, an American barge, took place in the Gulf of Mexico. The tug was arrested in Tampa, Florida. The Supreme Court refused an application to restrain the defendants, the tug, from proceeding in the English courts; in the course of his judgment Burger C.J. used language which looks to the present rather than to the past, and to the facts of modern commercial geography rather than to the amour propre of one court insisting on its jurisdiction in competition with that of another: </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">"The argument that such clauses are improper because they tend to 'oust' a court of jurisdiction is hardly more than a vestigial legal fiction. It appears to rest at core on historical juridical resistance to any attempt to reduce the power and business of a particular court and has little place in an era when all courts are overloaded and when businesses once essentially local now operate in world markets. It reflects something of a provincial attitude regarding the fairness of other tribunals." (p. 320) </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">There is also a good deal to be said for the view taken in the United States - see <a name="L215"></a><i>Mobil Tankers Co. S.A. v. Mene Grande Oil Co.</i> (1966) 363 F. 2d 611 - that forum non convenience is more likely to be applicable when the suit is between foreigners than where citizens are involved. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">My noble and learned friend, Lord Wilberforce, has made a full examination of the English cases and, since I agree with his analysis, I do not embark on one myself. The law could have developed in either of two ways; the line of approach of the majority, let alone the dissenting speech of Lord St. Lanyards, in <a name="L216"></a><i>Carron Iron Co. v. Maclaren</i> (1855) 5 H.L.Cas. 416 might have influenced English law in the direction in which Scots law was moving. The late 19th century cases influenced the law in another direction. But for my part I am content to accept the </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL477"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>477 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Lord Kilbrandon </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">view of my noble and learned friend that the judgment of Scott L.J. in <a name="L217"></a><i>St. Pierre v. South American Stores (Gath & Chaves) Ltd.</i> [1936] 1 K.B. 382, must, after its general acceptation over the years in England and in eke Commonwealth, be regarded as an authoritative exposition of the lines which should guide a court, when called upon to exercise its discretion whether or not to stay. That that is a matter of judicial discretion is not in doubt - referring to <a name="L218"></a><i>The Janera</i> [1928] P. 55, Langton J. said in The London [1931] P. 14, 20: "I do not think I can shelter myself under Hill J.'s judgment, and say that he has laid this matter down as law. Indeed no judgment can conclude this court as a matter of law." And Lord Merriman P. was to the same effect in <a name="L219"></a><i>The Monte Urbasa</i> [1953] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 587. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">The rule was stated by Scott L.J. in the <a name="L220"></a><i>St. Pierre</i> case [1936] 1 K.B. 382, 398 as follows: first that a plaintiff will not be deprived of his action on a mere balance of convenience, and second, that: </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="5%"></td><td width="93%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">"(<i>a</i>) the defendant must satisfy the court that the continuance of the action would work an injustice because it would be oppressive or vexatious to him or would be an abuse of the process of the court in some other way; and (<i>b</i>) the stay must not cause an injustice to the plaintiff." </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">There are plenty of earlier examples of the use of the words "oppressive" and "vexatious" in this context. But the words have, at all events today, certain shades of meaning which make it difficult to accept an uncritical construction as appropriate to all circumstances in which guidelines - and they are nothing more - may be required. "Oppressive" is an adjective which ought to be, and today normally is, confined to deliberate acts of moral, though not necessarily legal, delinquency, such as an unfair abuse of power by the stronger party in order that a weaker party may be put in difficulties in obtaining his just rights. "Vexatious" today has overtones of irresponsible pursuit of litigation by someone who either knows he has no proper cause of action, or is mentally incapable of forming a rational opinion on that topic. Either of these attitudes may amount to an abuse of the process of the court, but in my opinion a defendant miring for a stay cannot be compelled to bring the plaintiff's conduct within the scope of one of these grave allegations. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">In the present case, Brandon J. has pointed out that as far as convenience is concerned, the Commercial Court at Antwerp is by far the most convenient forum; the position of Phillimore L.J. is that, had it not been for the weight of authority, he would have held "that in the interests of justice regarded objectively a stay should be granted so that this case in all its aspects can be disposed of in the Commercial Court at Antwerp." These opinions support me in my view that (<i>a</i>) the competing claims in that court, (<i>b</i>) the fact that in a real sense the respondents, by asking for the appointment of a surveyor, appealed to that jurisdiction (I ignore the Belgian action at their instance for the reasons I have given), (<i>c</i>) the usual averments as to convenience of witnesses and parties, (<i>d</i>) the entirely unnecessary expense to which the English action whaled subject the appellants, (<i>e</i>) the total absence of physical connection between England and the subject matter of the action, are factors which </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL478"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>478 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Lord Kilbrandon </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">can, and in this case do, make the continuance of the case in England oppressive or vexatious to the defendants, within the morally neutral meaning which these words should, I think, in this context bear. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">It was said that to grant an application to stay proceedings was to drive a plaintiff from the judgment seat. Of course that is true, and the grounds upon which it can be done are very narrowly circumscribed. But the literary character of the phrase reminds one that when Gallio drove the Jews from his judgment seat he did so, not as a declinature of jurisdiction, which would have been unlikely in a judge in his position, but because he thought another forum was more appropriate for the determination of "a question of words and names, and of your law." "See ye to it," said he: Acts 18, vv. 14-16. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">In my opinion also the other requirement of the rule is satisfied, namely, that a stay will not work injustice to the plaintiff. As it was put in the (unsuccessful) argument for the defendants in <a name="L221"></a><i>Telford Panel & Engineering Works Pty. Ltd. v. Elder Smith Goldsbrough Mort Ltd.</i> [1969] V.R. 193, 195, "there is available another court, offering equal advantage to the plaintiff." I am not moved by the suggestion that, from a preliminary estimate of the effect of the surveyor's report, it may appear that the plaintiffs are likely to lose the advantage of a rule said to be exemplified by <a name="L222"></a><i>The Merchant Prince</i> [1892] P. 179, to the effect that prima facie a moving ship colliding with a stationary ship properly at anchor and properly lighted is held to blame. We have not been told, and I would have been surprised to have been told, that such a conclusion is not normally reached by Belgian, and other, maritime courts. From the account of the inquiry given in the case, the facts upon which responsibility for the instant collision will depend will not present quite so simple a picture. But in any event, I doubt whether a plaintiff can say that he is disadvantaged by not being allowed to litigate in a court which might take a different view of the facts from that which, on his estimate, has provisionally been arrived at in another competent court to which he has himself appealed, in the sense I have indicated. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">It may be that if a plaintiff could point to some advantage of a juridical kind which he would enjoy in one court but not in another, he might be said to be disadvantaged by being confined to the latter. Examples might be, main favourable terms for the limitation of liability, or possibly longer time-limits to actions. But nothing of that kind has been shown here. Some suggestions have been made as to the innate superiority of British methods of trial over those available elsewhere. I think it is impossible to substantiate this; English proceedings in Admiralty are undoubtedly widely admired (though they were criticised, for example, by Scrutton L.J. in <a name="L223"></a><i>The Tovarisch</i> [1930] P. 1), but the Belgian methods which have been described to us appear to have virtues of their own, and it is hard to make a fair discrimination between the two systems. I do not consider the fact that the plaintiffs have the security of bail in England to be significant, partly because of the commercial standing of the defendants, but more because the defendants have offered security in Belgium. And I do not, at present, appreciate the reason why foreign security which has been offered is said to be irrelevant in a plea to stay here, whereas security which has been exacted is not. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br></font><hr><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><br><a name="PL479"></a><table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>[1974] </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>479 </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr><tr valign="top"><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>A.C. </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="4%"></td><td width="92%"><p align="center"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Atlantic Star (H.L.(E.)) </b></font></p></td><td width="4%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td><td width="20%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="76%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" face="Times New Roman"><b>Lord Kilbrandon </b></font></p></td><td width="12%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Finally, reference was made to the International Convention Concerning Civil Jurisdiction in Matters of Collision. In my opinion the invention does not touch the present controversy. It is concerned solely with jurisdiction, as its name implies, and as its terms indicate; the existence of two or more competent fora each with jurisdiction to hear a particular dispute is a condition precedent to an application to stay being entertained. The convention itself (to which the Netherlands are not a party) is of no standing in a municipal matter such as the present. No doubt the Administration of Justice Act 1956 goes some way towards giving statutory effect to the provisions of the invention, but it has no reference to motions to stay, nor could it have without amendment to section 41 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">On the other topics which were discussed I agree with my noble and learned friend and have nothing to add. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">I would allow this appeal. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br> <table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="60%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"> </font></td><td width="40%"><font style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 11pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: ;"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="12%"></td><td width="82%"><p align="left"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman"><i>Appeal allowed. </i></font></p></td><td width="6%"></td></tr></tbody></table></font></td></tr></tbody></table> <br> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p style="text-indent: 2%;" align="justify"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">Solicitors: <i>Clyde & Co; Alsop, Stevens, Batesons & Co.</i></font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> <br> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr valign="top"><td width="2%"></td><td width="96%"><p align="right"><font style="font-size: 11pt;" face="Times New Roman">J. A. G. </font></p></td><td width="2%"></td></tr></tbody></table> </font> </body>  <script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> var sc_project=725110; var sc_partition=6; var sc_security="f8a2fd19"; </script> <script type="text/javascript" language="javascript" src="http://www.statcounter.com/counter/counter.js"></script><noscript><a href="http://www.statcounter.com/" target="_blank"><img src="http://c7.statcounter.com/counter.php?sc_project=725110&java=0&security=f8a2fd19" alt="counter statistics" border="0"></a> </noscript>  </html>