|
|||
| 诉讼代理 涉外诉讼 证据规则 诉讼技巧 法律资讯 最新法律法规条例 最高法院指导案例 收费标准 律师收费计算器 法院收费计算器 |
|
|||||
邮箱：442183168@qq.com |
广州海事法院一案例被英国法院引用并载入国际法权威杂志《劳氏法律报告》
典型案例
TYPICAL CASES
n 广州海事法院一案例被英国法院引用并载入国际法权威杂志《劳氏法律报告》（来源：人民法院报，2012年4月11日）
A case ruling from Guangzhou Maritime Court was cited by a UK court and recorded in the authoritative international law publication, the Lloyd’s Law Reports (Source: People’s Court News, April 11, 2012)
近日，广州海事法院作出的一宗海事强制令裁定被英国王座法院的法官在判决中引用，并被载入国际航运界权威法律杂志之一的《劳氏法律报告》（Lloyd’s law Reports）。据悉，中国法院作出的裁定被英国法院引用并刊登于《劳氏法律报告》尚属首次，说明该院海事审判已得到国际业界高度认可。
A maritime injunctive order of Guangzhou Maritime Court was recently cited by a judge of the Queen’s Bench Division in UK, and was recorded in one of the authoritative legal publication in the international shipping arena, the Lloyd’s Law Reports. It is unprecedented for a Chinese court ruling to be cited by a UK court and recorded in the Lloyd’s Law Reports, which signifies international recognition of the trial of the Guangzhou Maritime Court.
这宗案件是一宗复杂的海上货物运输合同连环诉讼案，争议焦点是谁合法持有提单。卖家深圳燕加隆实业发展公司将一批瓷砖卖给非洲买家贝宁共和国的法度公司（SONAEC VILLAS CEN SAD FADOUL），马士基航运公司承运该批瓷砖，并签发了一套收货人为法度公司的提单。提单条款中明确因运输产生的任何争议由英国王座法院管辖。由于非洲买家没有在约定的时间内支付货款，应卖方深圳公司的要求，马士基公司重新签发了一套以另外一买家为收货人的提单。
The case in question is a complicated series of cases involving maritime shipping contract, and at the center of the contention is who should be the rightful holder of the bills of lading. The seller, Shenzhen Yekalon Industry, Inc., sold a batch of tiles to an African buyer, SONAEC VILLAS CEN SAD FADOUL, and the carrier was Maersk Shipping who issued a set of bills of lading to the order of the consignee, SONAEC VILLAS CEN SAD FADOUL. The terms of the bills of lading specify that any dispute arising from or as a result of the shipping shall be under the jurisdiction of the Queen’s Bench Division in UK. The African buyer defaulted on its payment, and at the request of the Shenzhen-based seller, Maersk Shipping issued another set of bills of lading with another buyer as the consignee.
同一批货物签发了指定的收货人不同的两套提单，且非洲买家和后手买家均主张提货，遂产生了纠纷。卖方深圳公司向广州海事法院申请强制令，请求法院强制马士基公司向卖方出具正本提单，并将货物交付给后手买家。广州海事法院经审查，依法作出裁定准许了卖方深圳公司的请求。
Two sets of bills of lading were issued for the same batch of goods for the benefit of different consignees, and both the African buyer and the second buyer claimed right to receive goods, as a result, a dispute erupted. The Shenzhen-based seller applied to Guangzhou Maritime Court for an injunctive order to compel Maersk Shipping to issue an original bill of lading to seller, and deliver the goods to the second buyer. After review and examination, the Guangzhou Maritime Court duly granted the application of the Shenzhen-based seller.
非洲买家因没有收到货物，遂在非洲法院起诉马士基公司。马士基公司依据提单中的纠纷管辖条款，将非洲买家告上英国王座法院。英国王座法院认为，其具有不可争议的管辖权。由于被告没有出庭，也没有提交证据，所以英国法官只能依据原告的证据作出判断。原告主要证据之一是广州海事法院的裁定，并以此证明原告行为的合法性。英国法院据此作出了判决。
Failing to receive the goods, the African buyer brought Maersk Shipping to court in Africa, and Maersk Shipping initiated a case before the Queen’s Bench Division in UK according to the dispute resolution clause in the bill of lading. The Queen’s Bench Division held that it has indisputable jurisdiction over the dispute, and as the defendant did not appear nor did it submit any evidence, the Queen’s Bench Division cannot but rely on the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, and a major piece of the evidence is the injunctive order of Guangzhou Maritime Court which is used to prove the legality of plaintiff’s conduct. On the basis of the evidence, the UK court made its ruling.
TYPICAL CASES
n 广州海事法院一案例被英国法院引用并载入国际法权威杂志《劳氏法律报告》（来源：人民法院报，2012年4月11日）
A case ruling from Guangzhou Maritime Court was cited by a UK court and recorded in the authoritative international law publication, the Lloyd’s Law Reports (Source: People’s Court News, April 11, 2012)
近日，广州海事法院作出的一宗海事强制令裁定被英国王座法院的法官在判决中引用，并被载入国际航运界权威法律杂志之一的《劳氏法律报告》（Lloyd’s law Reports）。据悉，中国法院作出的裁定被英国法院引用并刊登于《劳氏法律报告》尚属首次，说明该院海事审判已得到国际业界高度认可。
A maritime injunctive order of Guangzhou Maritime Court was recently cited by a judge of the Queen’s Bench Division in UK, and was recorded in one of the authoritative legal publication in the international shipping arena, the Lloyd’s Law Reports. It is unprecedented for a Chinese court ruling to be cited by a UK court and recorded in the Lloyd’s Law Reports, which signifies international recognition of the trial of the Guangzhou Maritime Court.
这宗案件是一宗复杂的海上货物运输合同连环诉讼案，争议焦点是谁合法持有提单。卖家深圳燕加隆实业发展公司将一批瓷砖卖给非洲买家贝宁共和国的法度公司（SONAEC VILLAS CEN SAD FADOUL），马士基航运公司承运该批瓷砖，并签发了一套收货人为法度公司的提单。提单条款中明确因运输产生的任何争议由英国王座法院管辖。由于非洲买家没有在约定的时间内支付货款，应卖方深圳公司的要求，马士基公司重新签发了一套以另外一买家为收货人的提单。
The case in question is a complicated series of cases involving maritime shipping contract, and at the center of the contention is who should be the rightful holder of the bills of lading. The seller, Shenzhen Yekalon Industry, Inc., sold a batch of tiles to an African buyer, SONAEC VILLAS CEN SAD FADOUL, and the carrier was Maersk Shipping who issued a set of bills of lading to the order of the consignee, SONAEC VILLAS CEN SAD FADOUL. The terms of the bills of lading specify that any dispute arising from or as a result of the shipping shall be under the jurisdiction of the Queen’s Bench Division in UK. The African buyer defaulted on its payment, and at the request of the Shenzhen-based seller, Maersk Shipping issued another set of bills of lading with another buyer as the consignee.
同一批货物签发了指定的收货人不同的两套提单，且非洲买家和后手买家均主张提货，遂产生了纠纷。卖方深圳公司向广州海事法院申请强制令，请求法院强制马士基公司向卖方出具正本提单，并将货物交付给后手买家。广州海事法院经审查，依法作出裁定准许了卖方深圳公司的请求。
Two sets of bills of lading were issued for the same batch of goods for the benefit of different consignees, and both the African buyer and the second buyer claimed right to receive goods, as a result, a dispute erupted. The Shenzhen-based seller applied to Guangzhou Maritime Court for an injunctive order to compel Maersk Shipping to issue an original bill of lading to seller, and deliver the goods to the second buyer. After review and examination, the Guangzhou Maritime Court duly granted the application of the Shenzhen-based seller.
非洲买家因没有收到货物，遂在非洲法院起诉马士基公司。马士基公司依据提单中的纠纷管辖条款，将非洲买家告上英国王座法院。英国王座法院认为，其具有不可争议的管辖权。由于被告没有出庭，也没有提交证据，所以英国法官只能依据原告的证据作出判断。原告主要证据之一是广州海事法院的裁定，并以此证明原告行为的合法性。英国法院据此作出了判决。
Failing to receive the goods, the African buyer brought Maersk Shipping to court in Africa, and Maersk Shipping initiated a case before the Queen’s Bench Division in UK according to the dispute resolution clause in the bill of lading. The Queen’s Bench Division held that it has indisputable jurisdiction over the dispute, and as the defendant did not appear nor did it submit any evidence, the Queen’s Bench Division cannot but rely on the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, and a major piece of the evidence is the injunctive order of Guangzhou Maritime Court which is used to prove the legality of plaintiff’s conduct. On the basis of the evidence, the UK court made its ruling.