## Facts

- Unterweser Reederei GmbH, owner of the tug *Bremen*, contracted in November 1967 to tow Zapata Off-Shore Company’s drilling rig *Chaparral* from Venice, Louisiana, to Ravenna, Italy.
- The towage contract included a mandatory forum-selection clause: “Any dispute arising must be treated before the London Court of Justice.”
- In early January 1968, the tow encountered severe weather in the Gulf of Mexico; the *Chaparral* was seriously damaged, and the vessels diverted to Tampa, Florida.
- The parties asserted competing fault theories: Unterweser alleged the rig was unseaworthy; Zapata alleged the tug was unseaworthy and negligently operated.
- Zapata filed an admiralty action in federal court in Tampa seeking substantial damages; Unterweser posted security to release the *Bremen*, participated in discovery, and sought dismissal or a stay based on the London clause (and alternatively forum non conveniens).
- Unterweser then sued in the High Court in London for towage hire and contract damages and obtained leave (via a registrar) to serve the writ on Zapata in the United States.
- On Zapata’s application, Karminski J. set aside the leave to serve out; Unterweser appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a mandatory London forum-selection clause justified permitting service of an English writ on a foreign defendant out of the jurisdiction.
2. Whether the first-instance judge properly exercised discretion in setting aside the registrar’s order granting leave to serve out, given parallel U.S. proceedings and Unterweser’s participation in them.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal allowed Unterweser’s appeal and restored the registrar’s order granting leave to serve the writ out of the jurisdiction.
- The court held that the English court should assume jurisdiction in line with the parties’ mandatory London forum clause.
- Parallel U.S. litigation and Unterweser’s responsive participation there did not, without more, amount to a strong reason to refuse enforcement of the agreed London forum.

## Legal Principles

- A clear, mandatory forum-selection clause in an international commercial contract is a powerful factor favoring the English court accepting jurisdiction and permitting service out of the jurisdiction.
- The court will generally enforce the parties’ chosen forum unless the opposing party shows strong reasons why the clause should not be enforced.
- The existence of earlier or ongoing foreign proceedings is relevant to discretion but does not by itself displace the parties’ contractual choice of forum.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal enforced the contract’s London forum-selection clause by restoring leave to serve the foreign defendant out of the jurisdiction, holding that agreed forum clauses in international commercial contracts should ordinarily be upheld absent strong reasons to the contrary.


Unterweser Reederei GmbH v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 158 (C.A. 1968)