The Court has before it an application by the defendant shipowner to stay an action brought against it by the plaintiff shipper/cargo owner, on the ground that the plaintiff and the defendant have by their agreement, evidenced or embodied in a bill of lading, agreed to refer and submit all disputes between themselves for determination and adjudication in France. In effect the defendant is invoking the French jurisdiction clause and is claiming that the bill of lading is governed by French law. The relevant clause in the bill of lading provides: 'Basis of contract. The present contract of carriage is governed by the clauses of the present bill of lading and by those provisions of the International Convention of 25th August, 1924, the French Law of April 2, 1936 and Dihir Marocain which are obligatory upon the parties'. It further provides in substance that the Court which shall have the sole and exclusive jurisdiction to deal with any disputes by whomsoever caused and whichever their origin and cause may be, is the Commercial Court of the Seine. The first question to be considered is whether the dispute, the subject-matter of the action, is a dispute which, by the terms of the contracts between the parties they have agreed to, should be decided by the French Court of the Seine.

Held: Application dismissed.

In the light of the authorities and taking into account all the circumstances of this case, in exercising my discretion whether to grant a stay of the proceedings I have taken into consideration: (a) the stipulation in the bill of lading that all disputes should be adjudged by the French Court of the Seine; (b) that our Courts are in charge of their own proceedings and one of the rules which they apply is that such a stipulation is not absolutely binding, although such a stipulation is a matter to which the Courts of this country will give much regard to and to which they will normally give effect, but it is subject to the overriding principle that no-one can by his or her private stipulation oust the Courts of their jurisdiction in a matter that properly belongs to them; (c) that this dispute is a matter which properly belongs to the Courts of this country because here we have a Cypriot exporter, the cargo owner, who found itself not being paid the value of its goods although they have been delivered to the consignees; and (d) the vessel in question visits Cyprus and the shipowners are represented by Cypriot agents here.

Reading the affidavits and the arguments, my impression is that the Dutch shipowner does not object to the dispute being decided in this country, but wishes to take advantage of the limitation law governing the filing of disputes in France. Furthermore, there seems to me to be no doubt that although cl 2 of the bill of lading is governed by French law and should be judged by the French Court of Seine, nevertheless, the dispute is mostly concerned with Cyprus and the French element in the dispute seems to be comparatively small. The real dispute is between the Dutch owners of the ship and the Cypriot exporter of the cargo. It depends on the evidence here as to what was the contract of carriage, and as to whether the cargo owner has accepted the foreign jurisdiction clause.

Having reached the view that the dispute is mostly closely connected with Cyprus and not with France, and that Cyprus is forum conveniens regarding the witnesses, I think that sufficient reasons have been put before me why the proceedings should continue in our Courts, and should not be stayed.