brought against it by a Bermuda exempted company, Seanav International Limited.

Seanav is the charter owners of the M/V Yorkgate, which was chartered by the Switzerland-based Glencore International AG for the carriage of 1,500 metric tons of bulk ferro silicon from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil to Brownsville, Texas.

Seanav claimed damages arising out of the April and May 1995 loading of Glencore's cargo onto the Yorkgate in Rio de Janeiro and the subsequent detention of the vessel at Vitoria.

Glencore applied successfully to the court to stay proceedings commenced in Bermuda by Seanav through a specially endorsed writ dated November 1995.

Glencore, through lawyer Jerome Dill of Appleby, Spurling & Kempe submitted that the Bermuda court had no jurisdiction over the Swiss company, because it is neither incorporated, domiciled nor ordinarily resident, doing business nor having any assets here.

Mr. Dill submitted that Glencore as a defendant was only present for the purpose of contesting the jurisdictional issue and that a Brazilian court was more appropriate for the matter to be heard.

Acting Puisne Judge Patricia Dangor agreed, making note of the facts, among others, that the contract was negotiated in Brazil and the plaintiff had submitted voluntarily to the jurisdiction of the Brazil court in a separate substantive action.

The court dismissed arguments from lawyer Jeffrey Elkinson of Conyers, Dill & Pearman for the plaintiff that the Supreme Court Rules of Bermuda provide for the examination of witnesses in Brazil, which could then be produced in the Bermuda court.

He pointed out that a translation from Portuguese to English would not be a problem because of the considerable Portuguese speaking population here. The acting Puisne Judge determined, however, that it would be advantageous to the court that could hear the testimony firsthand. She also disputed Mr.

Elkinson's assertion that the case's connection with Brazil was fragile.

She summarised her findings that Seanav had voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the Brazilian court; Brazil has complete jurisdiction; Brazil is clearly and distinctly a more appropriate forum for the case than Bermuda; and, Seanav had not been able to prove there were any special factors overriding this.

Further, she found that Seanav had failed to prove Bermuda was its principal place of business.

The original contract referred disputes to the jurisdiction where the carrier has its principal place of business.

While she accepted evidence that administrative work was done in Bermuda, she saw no evidence that control was being exercised from Bermuda.

She concluded: "As the defendant has succeeded on both matters, it appears that costs should follow the event and the plaintiff should pay the defendant's costs. I will hear counsel on matters of costs.'' BUSINESS BUC