Introduction
Recently, the English Commercial Court in Tyson International Company Limited v GIC RE, India, Corporate Member Limited [2025] EWHC 77 (Comm) (“GIC case”) delivered a significant decision, holding that the English jurisdiction clause prevails over the arbitration clause despite the Court’s generally proarbitration stance that Malaysia adopts as well.
Brief facts of the case
Tyson International Company Ltd (“TICL”) entered into a reinsurance agreement with GIC RE, India, Corporate Member Ltd (“GIC”) through Market Reform Contracts (“MRC”) (policy documents), which contained an English law and jurisdiction clause in the following terms:
“This Reinsurance shall be governed by and construed according to the Laws of England and Wales. The Courts of England and Wales shall have exclusive jurisdiction of the parties hereto on all matters relating to this insurance.”
Subsequently, Facultative Certificates (which are based on a US standard form known as Market Uniform Reinsurance Agreement (“MURA”)), were issued in respect of each policy and executed by the parties. The Facultative Certificates contain an arbitration clause and a “Confusion Clause” which states as follows:
“RI slip [MRC] to take precedence over reinsurance certificate [Facultative Certificates] in case of confusion.”
A dispute arose over which agreement governed the parties’ obligations. TICL sought an anti-suit injunction in the English courts to prevent GIC from pursuing arbitration in New York, arguing that the MRC should take precedence.
