This is an extract of our Tatry document, which we sell as part of our Conflict of Laws BCL Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Conflict of Laws BCL Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
TATRY (1994) FACTS In September 1988 a cargo of soya bean oil belonging to a number of owners (hereinafter "the cargo owners") was carried in bulk aboard the vessel Tatry, belonging to a Polish shipping company, Zegluga Polska Spolka Alceyjna referred to in the order for reference as "the shipowners". The voyage was from Brazil to Rotterdam for part of the cargo and to Hamburg for the rest. The cargo owners complained to the shipowners that in the course of the voyage the cargo was contaminated with diesel or other hydrocarbons. There were three separate groups of cargo owners who all sued separately. Proceedings by Ship-owners: The shipowners brought an action before the Arrondissementsrechtbank (District Court), Rotterdam against Groups 1 and 3, with the exception of Phibro, seeking a declaration that they were not liable or not fully liable for the alleged contamination. Proceedings by Cargo-owners: After an unsuccessful attempt to arrest the Tatry in Hamburg, Group 3 brought an action in rem (hereinafter "Folio 2006") before the High Court of Justice, Queens' s Bench Division, Admiralty Court, against the Tatry and another ship, the Maciej Rataj, whose owners are the same as the owners of the Tatry. The action instituted by the Cargo owners before English Courts claimed damages for breach of contract while the action in Rotterdam by the shipowners was for a declaratory relief. QUESTIONS Interpretation of "same parties" For the purposes of the application of Article 21 of the Brussels Convention 1968 (as amended), where proceedings are brought in a Contracting State which involve the same cause of action as prior proceedings brought in another Contracting State, must the courts of the Contracting State second seised decline jurisdiction (a) only where there is a complete identity of parties between the two sets of proceedings or (b) only where all the parties to the proceedings in the courts of the Contracting State second seised are also parties to the proceedings in the courts of the Contracting State first seised or (c) whenever at least one of the plaintiffs and one of the defendants to the proceedings before the courts of the Contracting State second seised are also parties to the proceedings in the courts of the Contracting State first seised or
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Conflict of Laws BCL Notes.