"We confirm that the cargo being discharged from the vessel will be held at the wharf premises until an Original, endorsed, Bill of Lading is in the possession of the ships agent for forwarding to yourselves."

"re mv "NORMANNIA"

The above vessel berthed at Queenborough at 10.15 hrs on Saturday 20^th June and Master then requested an Original Bill of Lading to be supplied before discharge could commence.

Master was advised by us that receivers did not have an Original Bill of Lading available and if vessel unable work then probable that stevedores would require vessel to vacate berth to allow other waiting vessel to work.

Master then requested letter of confirmation from receivers as per the attached copy.

Discharged commenced at 10.30 and letter was given to Master at approx 1200 hrs 20^th.

For your information the receivers and stevedores are the same company and berth and storage area are privately owned by them and therefore not possible for any outside party to control any movement from/to site.

Our understanding is that the cargo is no longer at the wharf."

"σε περίπτωση που θα εγερθεί το θέμα του κατά πόσο το φορτίο παραδόθηκε λανθασμένα, το ερώτημα γιατί το φορτίο παραδόθηκε χωρίς την παρουσίαση πρωτότυπης φορτωτικής εκ μέρους των Άγγλων Εναγόντων θα μπορεί να απαντηθεί αφού ακουστεί μαρτυρία η οποία είναι διαθέσιμη στην Αγγλία."

"... ο κάθε μάρτυρας που θα δώσει μαρτυρία αναφορικά με την ουσία της υπόθεσης θα έλθει στην Κύπρο από την Αγγλία (ή πιθανώς από την Λιθουανία εν όψει των σημειώσεων του Καπετάνιου που εμφαίνονται στην επίδικη φορτωτική), και θα υποστεί αχρείαστο και μεγάλο οικονομικό βάρος το οποίο δεν θα υφίστατο αν η υπόθεση εκδικάζετο στον πιο κατάλληλο φορέα δηλαδή τα Δικαστήρια της Αγγλίας."

"Θα είναι απαραίτητο, πρόσωπα από τους αγοραστές Queenborough Rolling Mill Company Ltd ως επίσης από την Medway Shipping Services Ltd είτε να κληθούν ως μάρτυρες είτε να γίνει διαδικασία Τριτοδιάδικου εναντίον τους. Για ευνόητους λόγους θα ήταν πιο αποτελεσματικό εάν εγίνονταν Τριτοδιάδικοι σε διαδικασία που θα ξεκινούσε στην Αγγλία παρά σε τέτοια διαδικασία στην Κύπρο, και επίσης θα ήταν ευκολώτερο να κληθούν ως μάρτυρες στην Αγγλία παρά στην Κύπρο."

"(a) 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.

(b) As Lord Kinnear's formulation of the principle indicates, in general the burden of proof rests on the defendant to persuade the court to exercise its discretion to grant a stay (see, eg. the Societe du Gaz case 1926 SC(HL) 13 at 21 per Lord Sumner and Anton Private International Law (1967) p. 150). It is, however, of importance to remember that each party will seek to establish the existence of certain matters which will assist him in persuading the court to exercise its discretion in his favour, and that in respect of any such matter the evidential burden will rest on the party who asserts its existence. Furthermore, if the court is satisfied that there is another available forum which is prima facie the appropriate forum for the trial of the action, the burden will then shift to the plaintiff to show that there are special circumstances by reason of which justice requires that the trial should nevertheless take place in this country (see para (f) below).

(c) The question being whether there is some other forum which is the appropriate forum for the trial of the action, it is pertinent to ask whether the fact that the plaintiff has, ex hypothesi, founded jurisdiction as of right in accordance with the law of this country, or itself gives the plaintiff an advantage in the sense that the English court will not lightly distrurb jurisdiction so established ........

.................................. .................................................. .......

........ In my opinion, the burden resting on the defendant is not just to show that England is not the natural or appropriate forum for the trial, but to establish that there is another available forum which is clearly or distinctly more appropriate than the English forum. In this way, proper regard is paid to the fact that jurisdiction has been founded in England as of right .................................................. .................................

I may add that if, in any case the connection of the defendant with the English forum is a fragile one (for example if he is served with proceedings during a short visit to this country) it should be all the easier for him to prove that there is another clearly more appropriate forum for the trial overseas.

(d) Since the question is whether there exists some other forum which is clearly more appropriate for the trial of the action, the court will look first to see what factors there are which point in the direction of another forum. These are the factors which Lord Diplock described, in MacShannon's case [1978] 1 All ER 625 at 630, [1978] AC 795 at 812, as indicating that justice can be done in the other forum at 'substantially less inconvenience or expense'. Having regard to the anxiety expressed in your Lordships' House in the Societe du Gaz case 1926 SC(HL) 13 concerning the use of the word 'convenience' in this context, I respectfully consider that it may be more desirable, now that the English and Scottish principles are regarded as being the same, to adopt the expression used by Lord Keith in The Abidin Daver [1984] I All ER 470 at 479, [1984] AC 398 at 415 when he referred to the 'natural forum' as being 'that with which the action has the most real and substantial connection'. So it is for connecting factors in this sense that the court must first look; and these will include not only factors affecting convenience or expense (such as availability of witnesses), but also other factors such as the law governing the relevant transaction (as to which see Credit Chimique v. James Scott Engineering Group Ltd 1982 SLT 131), and the places where the parties respectively reside or carry on business.

(e) If the court concludes at that stage that there is no other available forum which is clearly more appropriate for the trial of the action, it will ordinarily refuse a stay: ....

(f) If, however, the court concludes at that stage that there is some other available forum which prima facie is clearly more appropriate for the trial of the action, it will ordinarily grant a stay unless there are circumstances by reason of which justice requires that a stay should nevertheless not be granted. In this inquiry, the court will consider all the circumstances of the case, including circumstances which go beyond those taken into account when considering connecting factors with other jurisdictions. One such factor can be the fact, if established objectively by cogent evidence, that the plaintiff will not obtain justice in the foreign jurisdiction: see The Abidin Daver [1984] 1 All ER 470 at 476, [1984] AC 398 at 411 per Lord Diplock, a passage which now makes plain that, on this inquiry, the burden of proof shifts to the plaintiff. How far other advantages to the plaintiff in proceeding in this country may be relevant in this connection, I shall have to consider at a later stage."