Moller v Hadson-Taylor (CivApp 10/1988) [1991] SLCA 2 (4 July 1991)

cava? 40/88 q BLO cout of aveAL Op STR BOB

Coram

‘ 7 * ae “J ‘HOie MRe JUSTIGH'E.C. THOMPSGI—-DAVIS . = JUSTICE OF APPEAL rar. as JUGETCR MoO, 24-DEBN = wuss oF APPEAL BQH. MR. JUSTICE W.0. ADOPHY ~ NSS © areal f -BBIVEER;~ ae Py HOLLER ~ aru

4 HADSGIWAAYLER & CO. ~ sro 4 ‘mioin & JUSU-SHBRIF? POR 1 APPELLANT Die £28 REIERBIOUS POR SD RESPONDENTS. i HULDIG DEEIVENED 1 9H 405 DAY OP ULE, 1991 “THOMPSGI-DAVIS, Jedlet ‘his appeal 1s frou a dectaton of Eis Lordship | Wes Justioo Saks hdenoou of Yovosber 6, 198%. He hnd ruled ageinat tho | gyputtenty norein co a Hotien brought by then Dofore ABHeourt tor tho following ordora te 1. ‘Mat ald eubsoquant procestings in this eotter be stayed on tho gromds that the Plaintif¢/Rospondont and, the firat F ‘and second Defondants/‘pypyedeinté: Nave’ agreed: thay all’ —- . Aioputos uriuing out of tho Bills of lading Wale CO0B 00085,, * 1 ‘and 0005 0075 are to be determined in Pagland according : , ‘to English lew to the exclusion of the Courts of any other 4 countrys 7 2. ‘Bat all-subsoquont procogdings dn this matter nentnat the 4 a 3rd and 4th Defendants bo atayed on tho grows thet there ‘ | et i iy no action maintainable im law against tho said third — : A and fourth Defendants horotzs : S 3» Purther or consequential orlorss ] + Goats { a 4 “ d

fj }

i ae i > ‘ho Larned Trial dulgo having carefully cmatderal the various i j! contentions raised Vefore his by both sidan Gdatlesed the applieatior i ‘a or stay and onlerod thatthe action be omtinued sp thig jurtedietions® ‘The action ordered to bo continued eqosraad two, vessels ~ The ' ‘NQHRK BELLA and Tho MAERSK BRAVO whch had boon chartered. to ar=y good | from Cotonou, Benin, to Freetown, Sierra pmo. The issue betwom tho . i Tartieo vas whether the Flaintis? tad suffered loos and damage resulting i fon the ftiury of the Doteadante delivering the goods withis @ ressoudte | tines But tho prisary insue before this Gourt, and that Lea at the ‘tho pleintiff. and tho Defendants is governed by the Bills of lading and i nothing eltas ciause 27 of the Bill of lading reatet to eoutract evidenced by this BAL of lading shall bo govurned by Bnglish laws and any atoputo thereunder shall be determined in England according to English law ‘9 the exclusion of tho jurtadiotion of the Courts of any other comtry." ‘he question now do wii auch an Bxclusive Juréediction Clause in a MALL of lading Sn fact go to oust the jurtatiction of the Courts im every otha: Country no matter what the fuets aro, th costs involved or any | other holding eantrainte? & court called ujen to oonaider an application i for stay purvusnt to an Exclusive jurisdiction clause must of necessity i cmsider the varying advantegus and disadvantages to the partion dnvolved 4m having their case hoard in ove juriediction or another} for inatanoo the onote of taking witnewoes fron ane eoutzy to another, thie upkeep, tho outs of tigation in ave jurisdiction compared to onothary any - Jutciad dontvantage Mealy to be gttured by ay of tho portion, the | xchag emote Likely te bo sifted by ne purty or anothers Tho oourt we

LY H at £ Sete \

will also say in most cages that the case should be tried by the form i with which St has the nost eonnootiona" i Dut certain legsl principles have guided the courte in sues appli= ~ cations made to thems Those principles ware sumerised in the Judgnent of Tord Sustico Trenton fn tho El-terda 1961 2 Woyds Reyeti9 ot Fete | od what he had to say vos endorsed by lord Justice Kerr in The yimar i (0.2) 1984 2 Woyis Rove 154 at pogo 155 a an axthoritative stateamt of |, ‘he Law an the subject "(1) Where Plaintiffs sue in Bngland in breach of an agroonent to refer disputes to a foreign é¢ourt, and the defendant apply for a stays the Buglish dourt, assuning the clats te bo otherndoe within Ste fiviediction, de not bound to grant o stay but hae a Giscrotion whether to d0 90 or note (2) to atscrotion should bo oxeretaot ty granting 2 stay unless trong enuse for not doing 20 4a shome

(5) Mie vurden of proving such atrong couse: 48 on the Fnintiftss (4) tm exorciaing Ste dscrotion the oourt ehould take into account all the clreustancos of the partiwilar oade (5) i pertiouary but without wosutico to (4) the folloving matters, where thane arise, may properly be regarded? (a) In what eountry the evideice on the desues of fact 0 oituatel, or nore readily avoidable, and the ettect of that on the relative cmnventence and expenao of ‘trinl a9 between the English and Foreign Gourtds | (v) Whether tho law of the Foreign Court applies and if so} wother &€ aiftere frou Baglish lev dn any matertal ; roswell (o) ith vat oowntsy ofther party de eenectad and how stovelye i (a) Wrethar the defendants genuinely desire trial in tho | * Forwigi Gouitey oF ary aly aovking procured advantages |

#! Sh ] sas)

24!

(0) Wether the Plaintites wuld be progulicod \ / vy bavng tae ts On Ferns Goce ocnse : } . they would (4) be dopbivs-veecurtty for theks i P elaine (44) vo male to enforced any judguont } / obtained (ii) be feoot with a tine ban not appli / exblo im Bagland or (iv) for politioal racial, j | Peligious or other reasons be wilikely to got a j fair trisha q Seading’Siorre Toone" inatoad of Bngland in tho cbove-centioned pasaagty i] the Flaintitta/losyondente aust show "utrong eauso" why Proceedings. should cmtinue dn this eomizy in violation of the oxprosoed arclusiye juriattor tia clause, vhero ouch "ottong cause" Se chow the discretion of the onurt vill bo exerciood in his fovoury end a stay of procedding vill not bo ordered T shall now go on to apply the facts of the case to these above ‘ suntiouod guiding principles ir T may, and drew the necessary oaveluatense (2) tm vint country 49 the evidence on the demio of facta sshuated or ore readily available? An their statomant of claim the Plaintiffs say that as a consequence of the | Aolayat delivery of the good; the market for the aaid gooda rl, additional uatone Duty had to bo pai ond tho Flaintitty loot mbstantially the whole lwanofit oxpocéing der the sata contracts 4m Ba Huling on the point tho loamed trial judge hed this to aay “sreseeeseetho evidence as to the prevailing market price of the goods sldypot at tho tno wen they should have arrived ond the price obtajuablo iso thay oventuslly arrived mnt necessarSly cowo from witnossee Sn Sterre Yow, and not miskoly tron thove Dasa in Frootoun and engaged in the trade Me samo goee for the evidence no 49 the Custom duty paid and vhys ‘is 7 Jordship wont on “seeeee Av to tho cause of the delay, I am of the opinion tut the evidanes on this point cm only eono fron tho defendants. thy dotency must, I Uhinke We basut on the fuote within tho imovledge of the lofunlants wid virich fet tho plaintize my not be 4n a position to robutte" |

— eee | F

The pages read for this report end here. The judgment continues in the PDF.