Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
JURISDICTION UNDER COMPETING CONVENTIONS
The Anna H
The Anna H
1 is the latest in a line of cases concerning the effect on actions in rem of the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968 (the “Brussels Convention”), which was brought into force in the United Kingdom by the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. The problem is that, according to Art. 3 of the Convention, a court in one Contracting State cannot take jurisdiction in actions against a defendant domiciled in another Contracting State unless it does so on one of the grounds set out in the Convention. It was held in The Deichland
2 that, in an action in rem, the owner, and apparently also the demise charterer, are to be regarded as defendants for this purpose. Since no direct provision is made for actions in rem in the Brussels Convention,3 it might seem that this would preclude such actions where the shipowner is domiciled in another Contracting State.
However, Art. 57 of the Convention provides a way out: it states that the Brussels Convention does not affect Conventions on “particular matters”, and that jurisdiction under such Conventions operates as before. The International Convention Relating to the
1. [1994] C.L.C. 1060; affg [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 287.
2. [1990] 1 Q.B. 361 (C.A.).
3. For exceptions, see Art. 5(7) (which applies to salvage of cargo or freight) and Art. 6A (which applies to limitation actions).
31