1. Royal University of Law and Economics
Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd case
Lecturer: Mateusz Prorok
Group Members: Lim Pisothikanha 
Srey Ratana
Chantha Daly

2. Contents Background Arguments of Both Parties Decision of the Court
Importance of the case for the International Law
Conclusion

3. Background Plaintiff Defendant Spilliada Cansulex Liberian Cooperation
Ship owner
Managers are in Greece
Some managements are in England
Canadian shippers of sulphur
Sulphur exporter in Vancouver
Export to Indian Company by hiring Spillida vessel

4. Argument of Both Parties
Liberian Cooperation
Cansulex Ltd
Hired the ship to the Indian Company to ship Sulphur from Cansulex
Sued Cansulex for boarding wet Sulphur which caused damage to the ship
Took the case to England Court
Plaintiff appeal to the “House of Lord” – upper house of the parliament of UK
Board the wet sulphur into the Spiliada
Did not take responsible for the damage
Applied for leave and all proceeding
England trial accept defendant’s appeal

5. Decision of the Court House of Lord focus on “Forum Non Convenient”
A stay will only be granted where the court is satisfied that there is some other available forum in which the case may be tried more suitably for the interests of all the parties and the ends of justice.
The burden of proof rests on the defendant to persuade the court to exercise its discretion to grant a stay, but if the court is satisfied that there is another available forum for the trial of the action, the burden will then shift to the plaintiff to show that there are special circumstances by reason of which justice requires that the trial should nevertheless take place in this country.
If the court concludes at that stage that there is no other available forum which is clearly more appropriate for the trial of the action, it will ordinarily refuse a stay.
Judge of Lord Templeman: Found their way to the court of appeal

6. Importance of the case for the International Law
The English Courts under pinned the important establishing the “natural forum” in Spiliada Maritime v Cansulex
The “natural forum” (appropriate forum) that proposed action has the most real and substantial connection. In the other word, it is the best suited to try the case for the interest of all the parties and the ends of justice.
Relevant factors in determing this most real and substantial connects are those concerning convenience of the parties, expenses, governing law, details about the transactions.
In this case where the English Jurisdiction is n this dispute, the plaintiff must establish that English Court are clearly the appropriate forum.
In Canadian law, a real and substantial connection test is a legal principle used to determine whether a subject matter falls within a jurisdiction. The phrase was first adopted in Canada in the Supreme Court of Canada decision of Libman v. The Queen (1985). It is used in several circumstances in matters of conflict of laws.
Forum: A court of justice where disputes are heard and decided; a judicial tribune that hears and decides disputes; a place of jurisdiction where remedies afforded by the law are pursued.
the most appropriate forum depends on the contract, the issues, the amounts in dispute, and the parties. If possible, the benefits and disadvantages of each available forum should be given careful consideration before one is chosen.

7. Conclusion
The decision on important of international law or on convenient forum. Choice law, in case of any dispute of transportation, must be decided while entering into an agreement. In the result, it seems to me that the solution of disputes about the relative merits of trial in England and trial abroad is pre- eminently a matter for the trial judge.
Forum non conveniens: a (mostly) common law legal doctrine whereby courts may refuse to take jurisdiction over matters where there is a more appropriate forum available to the parties. As a doctrine of the conflict of laws, forum non conveniens applies between courts in different countries and between courts in different jurisdictions in the same country. Forum non conveniens is not applicable between counties or federal districts within a state.

8. THANK YOU