The London
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 17 November 1930 |
| Date | 17 November 1930 |
| Court | Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division |
Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division
Langton, J.
The London
McHenry v. Lewis 1882, 47 L. T. Rep. 549 22 Ch. Div. 397
The PeshawurDID=ASPM 5 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 89 1883, 48 L. T. Rep. 796 8 Prob. Div. 32
The ChristiansborgDID=ASPM 5 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 491 1885, 53 L. T. Rep. 612 10 Prob. Div. 141
The JaneraDID=ASPMELR 17 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 416 138 L. T. Rep. 557 (1928) P. 55
Collision Lis alibi pendens Action in Scotland
The Peshawur (5 Asp. Mar. Law. Cas. 89; 1883, 48 L. T. Rep. 796; 8 Prob. Div. 32) considered and not followed.
180 ASPINALL'S MARITIME LAW CASES. ADM.] THE LONDON. [ADM. PROBATE, DIVORCE, AND ADMIRALTY DIVISION. ADMIRALTY BUSINESS. Nov. 14, 15, and 17, 1930. (Before LANGTON, J.) THE LONDON, (a) Collision - Lis alibi pendens - Action in Scotland - Subsequent action in England by party who is defendant in action in Scotland in respect of the saint subject matter - Application by defendant to stay proceedings in England - Discretion. In an action for damage by collision the plaintiffs were at the time when they began their action defenders in proceedings pending in Scotland in which the defendants in the action were pursuers. The proceedings in Scotland were in respect of the same collision as the English action. Held, that the court would not exercise its discretion to stay the action in England. The Peshawur (5 Asp. Mar. Law Cos. 89; 1883, 48 L. T. Rep. 796; 8 Prob. Div. 32) considered and not followed. SUMMONS (adjourned into court). The plaintiffs, owners of the steamship Granli, claimed damages in respect of a collision which took place on the 27th Oct. 1930 in the Firth of Tay between the Granli and the defendant's steamship London. The owners of the London began proceedings in personam in the courts in Scotland in respect of the damage sustained by the London, ??ubse-quently, the owners of the Granli began an action in rent in England in which the owners of the London were defendants. Upon the plaintiffs threatening to arrest the London, an undertaking for bail was given. The defendants then applied by summons to stay the action, but the registrar refused to do so. The defendants then applied to the judge. Langton, J. adjourned the summons into court for argument. Carpmael, for the defendants. - The action in England is oppressive and vexatious whilst the proceedings in Scotland are pending. The principle is that where an action is pending in a court of concurrent jurisdiction in England, Scotland, Ireland, or the Dominions, the court will, as a matter of course, stay any proceedings in England in respect of an identical subject-matter. Where an action is pending in a foreign court, different considerations would apply- [Reference was made to : Mellenry v. Lewis (1882. 47 L. T. Rep. 549; 22 Ch. Div. 397); The Bold Buccleugh (19 L. T. (O. S.) 235; 7 Moo. P. C. 267); The John and Mary (Swa 471); The Lanarkshire (2 Spinks, 189); The Catterina Chiazzaro (3 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 130 ; 84 L. T. Rep. 588); The Peshawur (5 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 89 ; 48 L. T. Rep. 796 ; 8 Prob. Div. 32); The Christiansborg (5 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 491; 56 L. T. Rep. 612; 10 Prob. Div. 141); Thornton v. Thornton (54 L. T. Rep. 774; 11 Prob. Div. 176); The lasep (12 Times L. Rep. 375, 434); The Reinbeck (6 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 366)...
To continue reading
Request your trial