Not long ago it could be stated with firmness that once a plaintiff had successfully commenced an action before an English court—either by serving a writ on the defendant within the jurisdiction, or outside it under the provisions of Order 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court; or, in respect of a maritime claim, by arresting one of his ships within the jurisdiction—the chances of the action being stayed on the ground that it ought to be tried elsewhere were minimal. If it were alleged that the bringing of the action was vexatious or oppressive, or perhaps if there was a lis alibi pendens; but otherwise the action would proceed. (There was also a certain amount of discretion exercised in connection with Order 11 applications.) It did not matter that taking of jurisdiction depended upon unlikely circumstances, nor that it might be very inconvenient to all concerned, and nor that there might exist a more appropriate forum for the hearing of the dispute in another country.1

This position was abandoned in The Atlantic Star 2 in 1974. In that case a collision at sea in Belgian waters led to proceedings in Belgium; when proceedings in respect of the same collision were brought in England the House of Lords stayed them on the ground (expressed in different ways) that the English forum was not that in which such a dispute should be tried. That case involved a lis alibi pendens, though the reasoning used was not confined to such situations. The next major landmark, which did not, was MacShannon v. Rockware Glass Ltd.3 There an industrial injury had occurred in Scotland, but proceedings in respect of it were brought in England. Once again the House of Lords stayed the action on the ground that the litigation ought to take place in Scotland. The case contained a statement of principle, applicable to actions in rem and in personam alike, in the judgment of Lord Diplock. He said:4