Re M.v ""Turquoise Bleu""

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1996
• Docket Number: [1994 No. 811P]
• Date: 01 January 1996
• Court: High Court

(H.C.)

In re M.V. "Turquoise Bleu"

- Stay of proceedings - Inherent jurisdiction of High Court to stay proceedings - Defendant obtaining order in Belgian court for arrest of ship as security for claim against shipowner - Substantive claim to be pursued in separate Belgian court - Plaintiff issuing Irish proceedings before issue of substantive Belgian proceedings - Which court first seized of issues between parties - Whether distinction between "substantive" proceedings and other proceedings relevant in determining court first seized of issues between the parties - Inherent jurisdiction of High Court to stay proceedings - Possibility of irreconcilable judgments - Whether court first seized of issues between parties can decline jurisdiction or exercise inherent jurisdiction to stay proceedings - European Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, 1968, art. 22.

Article 22 of the European Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments, 1968, provides, inter alia:- "Where related actions are brought in the courts of different contracting States any court other than the court first seized may, while the actions are pending at first instance, stay its proceedings …" Article 57 of the Convention of 1968 provides that the Convention "shall not affect any Convention to which the contracting States are or will be parties and which, in relation to particular matters, governs jurisdiction or the recognition or enforcement of judgments." By virtue of Article 7, sub-art. 1 of the International Convention relating to the Arrest of Seagoing Ships, 1952, the courts of the country in which the arrest of a ship is made shall have jurisdiction to determine a case upon its merits if "the claim concerns the voyage of the ship during which the arrest was made." The plaintiff was the owner of a ship which it had chartered to a Belgian company, which had concluded a sub-charterparty with the defendant, a company with its management and seat of control in Austria but registered in Ireland for tax purposes. The defendant's cargo was loaded on the ship and bills of lading issued. The defendant had fulfilled its obligations under the sub-charterparty, but due to a dispute with the Belgian company, the plaintiff refused to let the ship sail from Antwerp. On the 21 January, 1994, the defendant sought and obtained from the Antwerp Court of First Instance an order for the arrest of the ship, as security for proceedings...