Current Law Cases
Scope |
foreign jurisdictions; jurisdiction clauses;
breach; principles governing grant of anti suit injunction |
Case |
Society of Lloyd's v White (No.2) |
Court |
(QBD (Comm Ct)) Commercial Court |
Jurisdiction |
|
Judgment |
February 2, 2001 |
Judges |
Cresswell, J. |
Legislation |
|
Reported |
[2002] I.L.Pr. 11 |
Reference |
Times, May 24, 1996 |
Abstract |
W, a Lloyd's name, had joined S to an
action in Australia in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause in his
contract with S. W argued that the contract was vitiated by S's fraud. S
sought a permanent anti suit injunction to restrain W from taking proceedings
against it in Australia, in reliance upon the decision in v Jaffray
(Unreported, November 3, 2000) which found that S had not committed fraud in
its representations or failure to inform names or potential names of risks
arising from asbestos related claims, Jaffray cited. Held, granting the anti suit injunction, that
the following principles were to be considered in an anti suit injunction
application (1) cases involving exclusive jurisdiction clauses were to be distinguished from those that did not
and turned instead on the question of appropriate forum; (2) an English court
had power to restrain a party over whom it had personal jurisdiction from prosecuting
proceedings in a foreign court in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause;
(3) parties to an exclusive jurisdiction agreement should be held to it as it
was prima facie oppressive and vexatious to litigate otherwise than in the
agreed forum; (4) in the absence of strong reasons to the contrary, having
taken all the circumstances of the case into account, the court would enforce
a valid exclusive jurisdiction agreement by anti suit injunction, or by
staying domestic proceedings; (5) the same test applied whether the impeached
proceedings were overseas in breach of an English exclusive jurisdiction
agreement, or whether the proceedings were brought in England in breach of a
foreign exclusive jurisdiction agreement; (6) the convenience of a particular
forum was of little weight, since in exclusive jurisdiction agreement cases,
the parties were taken to have considered such matters in their original
choice of forum. However, an anti suit injunction could be
refused where independent third parties, not bound by the exclusive
jurisdiction agreement, were involved in proceedings other than in the
selected forum, and (7) applications for relief based on English exclusive
jurisdiction agreements should be brought promptly and before the impeached
proceedings became too far advanced. |
Subject |
Insurance |
Keywords |
Foreign jurisdictions, Injunctions,
Jurisdiction clauses |
Counsel |
For S: Charles Aldous Q.C. and Stephen
Houseman. For W: Not represented |
Solicitors |
For S: Freshfields |
Transcript |
|
Cases cited |
Society of LloydÕs v Jaffray (Unreported,
November 3, 2000) |