| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd
is a leading decision of the House of Lords on the doctrine of ''forum non conveniens''. It has been described as the "seminal case" on jurisdictional issues.
==Facts==
Wet sulfur was loaded onto two ships docked in British Columbia causing damage to them. An action was brought in England by the Liberian owners of the ''Spiliada'' for the damage to the ship against the sulfur exporter. The owners of the second ship, the ''Cambridgeshire'' also brought an action in England. Both ships were insured by English insurers.
The plaintiffs applied for leave to serve the defendants ''ex juris''. The trial judge granted leave. The defendant successfully appealed. The Court of Appeal held that the expenses alone and the existence of a B.C. limitation period were not enough to allow the claim to come to England.
Prior to the present case, an application for a stay or dismissal of proceedings falling within the proper jurisdiction of the court could only be granted on very narrow grounds. As stated in prior jurisprudence, the court could only stay the proceedings on the grounds that the suit was "oppressive, vexatious or an abuse of process" and that "the stay would not cause an injustice to the plaintiff".〔''Maharanee of Baroda v Wildenstein'', () 2 All ER 689, quoting ''St Pierre v South American Stores (Gath & Chaves)'' () All ER Rep 408〕
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|