The Spiliada or "Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd" [1986] , [1987 AC 460 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 sulphur 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 sulphur 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".
Judgment.
The appeal was allowed. Lord Goff wrote the lead judgment, with which all other Lords concurred. Lord Templeman wrote a concurring judgment which expanded on certain points, with which Lord Griffiths and Lord Mackay concurred.
In his judgment, Lord Goff summarised what he felt to be the current state of the law governing "forum non conveniens":
In his concurrence, Lord Templeman noted the complexity of the case at hand, observing that, "In the present case, a vessel managed partly in Greece and partly in England, flying the flag of Liberia and owned by a Liberian corporation is said to have been damaged by a cargo loaded by a British Columbia shipper and carried from Vancouver to India. Both sets of insurers are English." He declared:
Significance.
"Spiliada" has since been adopted in numerous jurisdictions including Canada, Singapore, New Zealand, and Hong Kong. The standard, however, has been rejected by Australia, where it has been held that a local court can only decline to exercise jurisdiction if it can be established that it is a clearly inappropriate forum. This has been subject to subsequent debate.
References.
 ;templatestyles src="Reflist/styles.css" / ;