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(7)
None of these facts are disputed by the Defendant. Its case is that it did not issue the "bills of lading" at all. It claims that an employee of its agent in Changsha, without his employers' or the Defendant's authority, provided the sellers with blank bill of lading forms, both of which were stamped with the Defendant's chop, and one of which bore a signature. It was the sellers who completed the details on the bill of lading forms, and then used the forms to obtain payment under the letter of credit.
The applicable principles
The applicable principles for determining an application for a stay on the ground of forum non conveniens are well-known, but in view of the particular submissions which have been developed on this appeal, it is useful to remind ourselves of what they are. The modern law is contained in the speech of Lord Goff of Chieveley in Spiliada Maritime Corporation v. Cansulex Ltd. [1987] 1 AC 460. At p. 476B-C, he said:
"The basic principle is that a stay will only be granted on the ground of forum non conveniens where the court is satisfied that there is some other available forum, having competent jurisdiction, which is the appropriate forum for the trial of the action, i.e. in which the case may be tried more suitably for the interests of all the parties and the ends of justice."


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