The jurisdiction of courts over collision actions is frequently challenged. Several factors encourage parties to make every effort to have their claim heard by their preferred forum. The difference in limitation regimes is the most decisive factor.

This paper compares several sets of national and international rules applicable to collision actions and evaluates them against four criteria: certainty, fairness, comity, and saving in time and costs. It concludes that most of these rules fail to satisfy these criteria. The jurisdictional rules of the European Union are more predictable than common law and Chinese rules; nevertheless, they evade the question of determining the appropriate forum and might end in deadlock.

The common law courts' attempts to find a convenient forum in collision actions are futile. From private and international law perspectives, there is no strong justification for favouring one forum over another.

The current approach of national courts and legislative trends do not indicate any inclination to adopt a multilateral approach to solving the problem of parallel collision actions. This problem can only be solved through private ordering.