In a recent post on our HSF Litigation notes blog, HSF Partners Andrew Cannon and Sarah McNally and Professional Support Consultant Maura McIntosh consider the High Court decision in Tyson International Company Ltd v GIC Re, India, Corporate Member Ltd [2024] EWHC 236 (Comm). In its decision, the Commercial Court continued an interim anti-suit injunction restraining a reinsurer from, among other things, commencing or continuing proceedings before any courts other than those in England and Wales in respect of all matters relating to the reinsurance “until the determination of any challenge… to the jurisdiction of the English Court”. The Court was satisfied to a “high degree of probability” that the reinsurance contract was governed by an exclusive English jurisdiction clause in the slip policy.
The decision is noteworthy from an arbitration perspective as the exclusive English jurisdiction clause conflicted with a New York arbitration clause contained in a facultative reinsurance certificate issued 9 days after the slip policy. However, as the parties adduced diametrically opposed expert opinions as to what is standard London market practice and which document would take precedence, the position was not clear. The judge therefore continued the anti-suit injunction until the determination of the defendant’s jurisdiction challenge, so that evidence of market practice could be properly tested. In particular, while the anti-suit injunction maintained by the English Court restrained court proceedings outside of England and Wales, it did not restrain the arbitration proceedings that had been commenced by the reinsurer. Instead, the Court observed that the reinsurer could challenge the English court’s jurisdiction, including by applying to stay the English court proceedings under s9 Arbitration Act 1996.
The full post on the decision can be found here on our Litigation notes blog.
For further information, please contact:
Andrew Cannon, Partner, Herbert Smith Freehills
andrew.cannon@hsf.com
