This was an appeal on a jurisdictional issue raised by Pormar SA, maintaining that the jurisdiction over a maritime claim brought by Compañía de Seguros Generales Consorcio General de Seguros SA corresponded to the ordinary courts and not to the arbitration tribunal.

Held: Appeal rejected.

Article 1203 of the Commercial Code provides that 'the jurisdiction of any controversy arising from facts, acts, or contracts arising from maritime commerce or navigation, including maritime insurance of any kind, shall be submitted to arbitration'. The rule in art 1203, far from having been altered by the Hamburg Rules invoked by Pormar SA, appears to be ratified by art 21 of the latter instrument. Indeed, art 21.1.c of the Hamburg Rules provides:

In judicial proceedings relating to carriage of goods under this Convention the plaintiff, at his option, may institute an action in a court which according to the law of the State where the court is situated, is competent and within the jurisdiction of which is situated one of the following places: ...

(c) the port of loading or the port of discharge; ...

This provision in art 21 refers or sends to Chilean law the determination of the question of the court and jurisdiction in matters that, like the one in this case, must be heard and determined under Chilean law in the arbitral jurisdiction. Consequently, the aforementioned allegation, ie, that the matter corresponds to an ordinary trial, lacks any legal basis.