由此 A B - 4 8. The starting point for any consideration of forum non conveniens is the judgement of Lord Goff in Spilada Maritime Corporation A B v Cansulex Ltd [1987] 460 at 476-478, the principles in which have been C D E F applied in Hong Kong since The Adhiguna Meranti [1987] HKLR 904, CA. These are the principles that I apply. 9. The law is equally clear that the jurisdiction in which a tort has been committed is prima facie the natural forum for the determination of the C D E F dispute: The Albaforth [1984] 21 Ll. R 91, see also Berezovsky v Forbes G H [2000] 1 WLR 1004. It is right that the decisions in those cases were decisions in relation to issues of service out of the jurisdiction, and matter of G H discretion, whereas in the present case Emperor issue their writ as of right. I I am satisfied that that is not a sufficient point of distinction. J J 10. K L I Spilada and The Albaforth have been reviewed recently in Berezovsky. There, Lord Steyn drew attention to the general nature of the propositions in Spilada, and the practical issues considered in The Albaforth. K L Commenting that in Berezovsky counsel accepted that he could not object to M M a proposition that the place where in substance the tort arises is a weighty N factor pointing to the jurisdiction being the appropriate one, the House of N Lords upheld the principle of law that the jurisdiction in which a tort is O O committed is prima facie the natural forum for the determination of the P dispute. P Q Q 11. R S I am also assisted in this matter by the decision in Rambas Marketing Co LLC v Chow [2001] 3 HKC 250, where Mr Recorder Ma, (as he then was), set out the three essential stages of the inquiry in forum non R S conveniens cases. They are: T T U U V V