法律图书馆>>法律论文资料库>>全文
香港法院审理案件中的法律论证过程 ——以United Phosphorus LTD v. China Merchants Shipping & Enterprises Co Ltd 上诉审为例/陈汉瑛(13)
With one crucial exception, Mr Clifford Smith for the Plaintiff agreed with that analysis. He agreed that the judge's conclusion had been that the Defendant had failed to discharge the burden imposed on it at stage I of the analysis. Accordingly, the judge did not go on to consider stages II and III. Mr Smith also agreed that such juridical disadvantages as the Plaintiff would encounter if its claim proceeded in the Guangzhou Maritime Court were not such as to justify denying the Defendant the right to have the case heard there which, ex hypothesi, would clearly or distinctly be the more appropriate available forum. The critical point at issue, therefore, was the judge's conclusion at stage I of the analysis. Was the judge right to conclude that the Defendant had failed to discharge the burden on it to show that the Guangzhou Maritime Court was clearly or distinctly more appropriate for the trial of the action than the courts of Hong Kong?
The substance of the judge's decision
Before addressing that question, I wish to comment on whether the judge had indeed decided the issue of a stay against the Defendant at stage I of the analysis. The judge concluded his judgment in these terms:


总共23页     [1]   [2]   [3]   [4]   [5]   [6]   [7]   [8]   [9]   [10]   [11]   [12]   13   [14]   [15]   [16]   [17]   [18]   [19]   [20]   [21]   [22]   [23]  
上一页     下一页    

声明:本论文由《法律图书馆》网站收藏,
仅供学术研究参考使用,
版权为原作者所有,未经作者同意,不得转载。
法律图书馆>>法律论文资料库