A collision might lead to parallel proceedings in different jurisdictions. There are two reasons. Firstly, the parties seldom agree on a forum to hear their dispute in collision cases. This is mainly due to the significant disparities in tonnage limitation across different jurisdictions. Secondly, claimants usually have multiple options concerning where to bring their collision and related actions under national and international jurisdictional rules.

Mechanisms such as forum non conveniens, the anti-suit injunction, and lis pendens have been adopted to avoid concurrent proceedings and irreconcilable judgments. This paper will examine the efficacy of these mechanisms in the context of collision actions and their related actions.

This paper compares the conflict of laws rules applicable to collision actions in different jurisdictions. It aims to design a set of ideal rules to determine the most appropriate forum for collision actions to minimise the risk of prolonged and costly dispute resolution and to ensure a fair and foreseeable decision.