On 21 December 1994, a collision occurred in the Atlantic Ocean between the Ya Mawlaya and the New World. The Ya Mawlaya was registered in Cyprus. Kara Mara Shipping Co Ltd (the plaintiff) was the bareboat charterer. The vessel was managed by SNP Shipping Services Pte Ltd (SNP) in India, and they subcontracted a large part of the management of Holdbud Ship Management Ltd (Holdbud) in England. The crew were from India. The plaintiff, SNP and Holbud were all parts of a commodity trading group owned and controlled by an Indian family called Merali.

The New World was registered in Hong Kong. World Tankers Carriers Corp (WTCC) was the owner and first defendant. WTCC was a Liberian company, and was registered in Hong Kong as an overseas corporation. WTCC’s principal place of business was Monte Carlo and the vessel was managed and operated from Monte Carlo and Canada. Hong Kong was not the principal place of business for WTCC but they had an office owned by the second defendant.

The second defendant, Expedo Marine Management Ltd (Expedo), was a Hong Kong company which had contracted with WTCC to manage the New World. Expedo subcontracted that function to Expedo Shipmanagement (Canada) Ltd. The New World's crew came from China, Taiwan and the Philippines.

The Ya Mawlaya had left New Orleans on 7 December with a cargo of soya beans for carriage to Italy. The New World left Gabon with a cargo of crude oil for France.

The solicitor for the defendants gathered the circumstances of the collision from the sworn deposition of the second mate of the New World and the sworn deposition of the second mate of the Berge Stavanger (a Norwegian vessel passing by at the time of the collision). The Ya Mawlaya was identified by the New World’s second mate as the give-way vessel in a crossing situation governed by rr 15 and 17 of the COLREGS. When it became clear that the Ya Mawlaya was not changing course and a close quarters situation was developing, the New World made several attempts to contact the Ya Mawlaya by VHF. After there was no response, the New World sent a visual signal. As the vessels closed, the New World turned hard to starboard and the Ya Mawlaya also altered course to starboard and turned into the collision. The collision opened the New World's nos 1 and 2 port wing tanks, spilling some 10,000 tons of cargo onto the deck and into the surrounding water. A fire and explosions followed quickly and the ship was engulfed. The captain gave the order to abandon ship. Nineteen crewmen abandoned in the starboard lifeboat while the chief mate and the second engineer remained behind to fight the fire. Eight crewmen were not found and were presumed dead.

Another cargo vessel, the Captademtris, answered the distress call from the New World. The Ya Mawlaya did not make any attempts to contact the New World or offer any assistance to the search for survivors.

This was notwithstanding art 8 of the Collision Convention 1910 which provides:

After a collision, the master of each of the vessels, in collision is bound, so far as he can do so without serious danger to his vessel, her crew and her passengers, to render assistance to the other vessel, her crew and her passengers.

He is likewise bound so far as possible to make known to the other vessel the name of his vessel and the port to which she belongs, and also the names of the ports from which she comes and to which she is bound.

A breach of the above provisions does not of itself impose any liability on the owner of a vessel.

The plaintiff did not put forward another version of the collision which contradicted the defendants' version. The defendants therefore submitted that it is objectively plain that the prime responsibility for the collision lay with the Ya Mawlaya and they will be the paying party. WTCC estimated its loss at about USD 16 million.

Proceedings commenced in a variety of jurisdictions including New Orleans, Georgia, California, Lisbon and London. The plaintiff applied for an anti-suit injunction to prevent WTCC proceeding in New Orleans. The defendants applied for an application to stay the proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens.

Held: Judgment for the defendants.

New Orleans is a clearly more appropriate forum to dispose of the matter in a consolidated action involving disputes among a number of parties arising out of the same incident. Accordingly, the defendants' application for a stay of proceedings in Hong Kong is granted and the plaintiff's application for an anti-suit injunction is denied.