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(5)
后记:对应双方律师不时地机智辩驳的是香港法官详尽无遗的说理,彼此的互动针锋相对环环相扣,这一上诉案件为我们国际法的学生呈现了香港司法实境的别开生面,不管对于法律逻辑思辨能力的提升抑或诉讼实务技能知识的增益都很有好处。

文中引用案例裁判书原文如下:
2000 WL 33316422 (CA), [2000] HKEC 162
UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD v CHINA MERCHANTS SHIPPING & ENTERPRISES CO LTD
11 February 2000
COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 244 OF 1998 (ON APPEAL FROM HCCL NO. 81 OF 1997)CA CACV 244/1998
Judge name :Godfrey V-P and Keith JA
Counsel In The Case :
Mr Clifford Smith, instructed by Messrs Deacons, Graham & James, for the Plaintiff.
Mr Charles Sussex, instructed by Messrs Ng & Partners, for the Defendant.

Phrases :
Conflict of laws - forum non conveniens
Details of Judgment :
Keith JA (giving the first judgment at the invitation of Godfrey V-P):
Introduction
In this action, the Defendant applied for a stay of the proceedings. It did so on two grounds. The first was that an exclusive jurisdiction clause required the dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to be determined in the courts of the mainland. The second was that the Guangzhou Maritime Court in the Province of Guangdong was the more appropriate forum for the resolution of the dispute than the High Court of Hong Kong. Stone J declined to stay the proceedings, and the Defendant now appeals. There is no appeal from the judge's conclusion relating to the exclusive jurisdiction clause. It is only his ruling on the issue of forum non conveniens which is challenged.


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