In the case of a maritime transport contract dispute between a Chilean agricultural company and a Turkish steel company, along with a Singaporean shipping company, the Chilean agricultural company, as the consignee recorded on the bill of lading, filed a lawsuit with the court. The claim was based on the damage to 300 tons of magnesium sulfate transported by the Turkish-flagged vessel “Pearl” from Bayuquan Port in China to Valparaiso Port in Chile. The plaintiff sought a judgment ordering the actual carrier, the Turkish steel company, and the contractual carrier, the Singaporean shipping company, to compensate approximately 670,000 yuan. During the court’s case filing review, it was discovered that the terms on the back of the bill of lading stipulated jurisdiction either by the flag state of the vessel or by a country/location agreed upon by the carrier and the cargo interests. The court held that after the Chilean agricultural company chose to file a lawsuit at the Dalian Maritime Court, which has statutory jurisdiction in China, the other two parties did not raise any jurisdictional objections and responded to the lawsuit. Furthermore, they informed the court of their waiver of the jurisdiction clause stipulated on the reverse side of the bill of lading. Consequently, the Dalian Maritime Court established its jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China concerning foreign-related matters. After a comprehensive review of the evidence and facts, the court organized multiple rounds of negotiations among the parties, ultimately facilitating the signing of a settlement agreement. The Chilean agricultural company received the full settlement amount within 15 days of the agreement’s execution and withdrew the lawsuit.
【Typical Significance】All parties involved were foreign legal entities. Despite having a clear agreement on jurisdictional matters, they chose to waive the agreed jurisdiction and litigate in a Chinese court, demonstrating their high level of trust in China’s foreign-related maritime judiciary. Upon accepting the case, the court adhered to the principle of equal protection, providing inclusive, equitable, efficient, and accessible judicial services to market entities from various countries. By resolving the dispute through mediation in a single, substantive proceeding, the court actively contributed to maintaining the stability and smooth operation of global industrial and supply chains. This case exemplifies the practical achievements of Liaoning courts in recent years as they strive to establish a preferred destination for international commercial dispute resolution.