英语论文网

Insurance Law Monthly
View whole of
• Issue 5, May
• Articles
• Anti-suit injunctions ...
ILM 17 5 (4)
1 May 2005
Anti-suit injunctions
Exclusive jurisdiction clauses and anti-suit injunctions
© INFORMA UK LTD 2005
As noted above, an anti-suit injunction can no longer be granted by the English courts to restrain the defendant's participation in proceedings elsewhere in the EU or EFTA 代写留学生论文in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause. That restriction does not apply if the foreign court is outside the EU and EFTA. In Beazley v Horizon Offshore Contractors Inc [2004] EWHC 2555 (Comm), HHJ Chambers QC considered whether it was appropriate for the English court to grant an anti-suit injunction to support an exclusive jurisdiction clause nominating England. The outcome was never seriously in doubt.
INSURANCE

Beazley: the facts
The barge Gulf Horizon was owned by Horizon, a company registered in Delaware, and insured by underwriters under a slip policy placed in London and governed by English law. The slip policy contained the words 'Jurisdiction: English Courts'. The slip incorporated the MAR 91 wording, which contained its own provision on jurisdiction, namely:
'This insurance shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English Courts, except as may be expressly provided herein to the contrary.'
The vessel was damaged by fire en route from Texas to Israel. She was abandoned and later towed to Charleston. Shortly afterwards the underwriters avoided the policy for breach of the duty of utmost good faith, and in August 2004 commenced the present action for a declaration that the policy was voidable by reason of Horizon's non-disclosure of the extent of the work to be carried out on the vessel while she was in passage. Horizon responded by commencing its own action in Texas in September 2004. Horizon asserted that under Texas law the policy was governed by the law of Texas, and claimed both the insured sum of US$28m for constructive total loss and also damages for the bad faith handling of the claim by the underwriters. The underwriters sought an anti-suit injunction against Horizon preventing it from pursuing the action in Texas.
The decision
HHJ Chambers QC granted the anti-suit injunction. His starting point was that the parties had clearly agreed that the English courts were to have exclusive jurisdiction, this being the effect of both MAR 91 and the slip policy. The Court further ruled that the phrase 'This insurance shall be subject to …' covered all matters which might arise in respect of the policy, including tort claims. HHJ Chambers QC noted that the phrase used was 'this insurance' and distinguished more limited wording such as 'this contract/policy of insurance': in his view the intention of the parties was to have all disputes between them resolved in a single forum.
The Court confirmed that, when determining whether jurisdiction should be asserted where there was an exclusive jurisdiction clause nominating England, it was not appropriate to consider whether England was an appropriate forum (as would be the case in the absence of a jurisdiction clause). The clause was a contract between the parties, and the general rule was that they should be held to their bargain other than in exceptional circumstances which were not foreseen at the outset. One consequence of requiring Horizon to sue 本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。