Forum Non Conveniens in South African Admiralty Suit
Zhu Weidong
[Abstract] Forum non conveniens doctrine is a common feature concerning jurisdictional law in common law countries. As a mixed jurisdiction South African courts didn’t apply the doctrine in admiralty suit prior to the enactment of Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act. Section 7 (1) of this act introduced the doctrine into South African law, but it is expressly set up and explained in detail by South African court through cases. The application of forum non conveniens in South Africa followed the standards set up in English cases ,especially in the operation of onus. However,there are some differences in connecting factors and security between them. Section 7 (1) was amended in 1992,but the amendment didn’t change the means of the operation of onus.
[key words] South Africa Admiralty suit Forum non conveniens
【注释】① 杨慧、游春亮：《南非扣船引发离奇诉讼》，载于《法制日报》2002年7月13日第3版。比较典型的扣船事件有：2002年3月12日广州远洋运输公司所属的“乐从”轮南非德班被扣案、1999年8月26日海南洋浦国信船务有限公司所属“恒裕”轮南非德班被扣案。
② Gulf Oil Corp v. Gilbert, 330,U.S.501 (1947), 参见张茂著：《美国国际
民事诉讼法》，中国政法大学出版社，1999年版，第100页。
③ The Abidin DaverAC 398, 1 All ER 470, 参见李旺著：《国际诉讼竞合》，中国政法大学出版社，2002年版，第100页。
④ Spiliada Maritime Corporation v . Cansulex Ltd vol 1 Lloyds Rep1, 参见李旺著：前引书，第100页。
⑤ Cheshire & North, Private International Law,Butterworths London,1999,13th ed ,p.335.
① C F Forsyth, Private International Law: the Modern Roman-Dutch Law Including the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, Juta &Co,Ltd.3rd ed,p.164.
② Kandagasabatathy and Others v. MV Mellina Tsiris 1981 (3) SA 313 (c), www.uctshiplaw.com/theses/dswardt.htm, March 25,2004.
③ Magat and Others v. MV Houda Pearl 1982 (3) SA 37 (N), www.uctshiplaw.com/theses/dswardt.htm, March 25,2004.
④ La Société du Gaz de Paris v. La Société Anonyme de Navigation “Les Armateurs Francais” Vol23 Lloyds Rep 209,参见李旺著：前引书，第110页。
⑤ The Atlantic Star 2 All ER 175 (HL), 参见李旺著：前引书，第82页。
① Katagum Wholesale Commodities v. The MV Paz 1984 (3) SA261(N), www.uctshiplaw.com/theses/dswardt.htm, March 25,2004.
② MV Spartan Runner v. Jotun-Henry Clark Ltd 1991 (3) SA 803 (N), www.uctshiplaw.com/theses/dswardt.htm, March 25,2004.
③ The Elftheria 1 Lloyds Rep 237. to see Lawrence Collins，op,cit.,p.351.
④ the Great River Shipping v. Sunnyface Marine 1992 (4) SA 313 (c),www.uctshiplaw.com/theses/dswardt.htm, March 25,2004.
①高夫爵士在斯皮利达一案中所阐述的有关不方便法院原则的观点，参见Lawrence Collins,Dicey and Morris on the Conflict of Laws,Sweet & Maxwell(London),2000,13th ed,pp.395-396; Abla Mayss,Principles of Conflict of Laws,Cavendish publishing Limited,1999,pp25-26.
② Oceanic Sun-Line Special Shipping Co Inc v. Fay, 165 CLR 197, High Court of Australia; Voth v. Manildra Flour Mills Pty Ltd, ] 171 CLR, High Court of Australia, 参见徐卉著：《涉外民商事诉讼管辖权冲突研究》，中国政法大学出版社，2001年版，第137-138页。
③ Thalassini Augi v. Dimitris,1989 (3) SA 820 A.D, www.uctshiplaw.com/theses/dswardt.htm, March 25,2004.
④高夫爵士在斯皮利达一案中所提出的有关证明责任承担的“两阶段方法（two-stage approach）”是指，在决定是否适用不方便法院原则时，被告必须在第一阶段证明英国法院不是审理案件的适当法院并且在英国之外存在另外一个对于审理案件来说是可以利用的、明显更适当的法院。被告一旦证明在英国之外存在另外一个明显更适当的法院，那么，原告必须在第二阶段承担出于公正的考虑案件必须在英国法院审理的证明责任。参见Cheshire & North,op,cit.,p.336.; Abla Mayss,op,cit.,p.26.
① Lawrence Collins，op,cit.,p.396.
②袁泉：《有关不方便法院原则的几个问题》，中国国际私法学会：《2002年上海年会论文选编》，第405页。
① MV Spartan Runner v. Jotun-Henry Clark Ltd, 1991 (3) SA 803 (N), www.uctshiplaw.com/theses/dswardt.htm, March 25,2004.
②刘兴莉：《论海事诉讼中的不方便法院原则》，中国国际私法学会：《2002年上海年会论文论文选编》，第419页。
① Owners of the Cargo v. Mantai Line Company Ltd, case No:A137/96;Date:1996/08/28,Durban & Coast Local Division, http://www.uctshiplaw.com/unrepdbn.htm,March 28,2004.
