Held: This was an international dispute because most parties named in the application were established in foreign countries, the accident happened off Singapore or on the high seas, and the Stolt Commitment is registered in the Cayman Islands. In a limitation procedure, the question on competence can be raised in the first (current) phase, but also at a later phase. Therefore the assessment in the first phase does not have a definitive nature. Since there were parties domiciled in the European Union and in Norway, questions regarding jurisdiction were to be answered on the basis of EU Regulation 1215/2012 (Brussels I Regulation) or the Lugano Convention 2007. Article 71 of the Brussels I Regulation does not affect a provision on jurisdiction in a convention on a particular matter, provided that this provision is applied in a way that guarantees respect for the goals and principles on which the Brussels I Regulation is based on at least as favourable conditions as the Brussels I Regulation itself. Article 67 of the Lugano Convention 2007 contains a similar rule. The Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976 (LLMC 1976) does not explicitly regulate jurisdiction. However, art 11 of the LLMC 1976 guides the person who wants to limit liability, in particular to the ‘Court or other competent authority in any State Party in which legal proceedings are instituted in respect of claims subject to limitation’. Since art 11 of the LLMC did not create jurisdiction, the rules in the Brussels I Regulation and the Lugano Convention 2007 were not set aside. Neither the Brussels I Regulation nor the Lugano Convention 2007 regulates jurisdiction with regard to an application for the limitation of liability, or the constitution of a limitation fund, except for art 9 of the Brussels I Regulation and art 7 of the Lugano Convention 2007 respectively, both of which did not apply in this case as no procedure relating to the liability of Stolt Tankers BV was brought before a Dutch court. As there was neither any applicable international instrument granting jurisdiction to the Dutch courts nor any international instrument excluding it, the question of jurisdiction was to be answered following national rules, especially with regard to arts 3 and 642a of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (DCCP). According to art 642a of the DCCP, which applied at the time of the filing of the petition, the Rotterdam Court was competent to hear an application for limitation of liability with regard to ships not registered in the Netherlands, such as the Stolt Commitment. Therefore, in principle the Dutch court had jurisdiction to hear the requests contained in the current application.  According to art 3 chapeau and paras a and c of the DCCP, the Dutch Court had jurisdiction regarding the application in question.

There was no issue of lis pendens. Although the proceedings in Norway involved the same parties and the claims have the same cause of action ie the collision, the object of the proceedings was different. The proceedings in question concerned the limitation of liability, whereas the alleged liability is the object of the Norwegian proceedings. The request to be allowed to join the limitation funds set up by Stolt Tankers BV is based on art 11.3 of the LLMC, respectively art 8:750 of the Dutch Civil Code (DCC) in conjunction with art 8:758 paragraph 1 chapeau and paragraph a of the DCC. The Netherlands has made use of the option under art 10.1 of the LLMC and has arranged in its national laws that limitation of liability is only possible by constituting a limitation fund. It is sufficiently known between the parties that (and in what manner) Stolt Tankers BV has established such limitation funds by means of two guarantees of Gard. Stolt Commitment BV has adequately demonstrated that it was the owner of the Stolt Commitment at the time of the collision. Therefore Stolt Commitment BV falls within the circle of persons entitled to limitation of liability in connection with the collision. That is why, in principle, the explanation must be given that the limitation funds established by Stolt Tankers BV also extend to limitation of liability of Stolt Commitment BV. Although Stolt Commitment BV has lodged an appeal against the decision of the Court of Rotterdam of 15 February 2017, and there is therefore the possibility that the Court of Appeal will decide the issue differently than that Court, it does not therefore follow that the current request of Stolt Commitment BV cannot be heard. If the Court of Appeal rules that the original petition of Stolt Commitment BV should have been granted, this will have no other effect other than that the request should have been granted earlier than it has. However, because the appeal decision is currently not available, this possibility does not prevent the submission of this petition, nor does it prevent a judgment in favour thereon. Nor does the fact that the defendants have lodged an appeal against the decision of the Court of 15 February 2017 on the petition of Stolt Tankers BV, and consequently the existence of the possibility that the Court of Appeal will decide differently than that Court, mean that Stolt Commitment BV cannot submit its petition. If the Court of Appeal decides that no jurisdiction or competence existed with regard to the original petition of Stolt Tankers BV, or that the petition should have been denied, this judgment in itself has no other effect than that the procedure to limit the liability of Stolt Tankers BV terminates. The termination in itself does not mean the lapse of the stated limitation funds. Therefore Stolt Commitment BV can join the established limitation funds pending appeal.