英语论文网

WEST TANKERS INCvRAS RIUNIONE ADRIATICA DI SICURTASPAArbitration — Anti-suit injunction留学生论文代写 — Proceedings commenced in Italy by insurers using subrogation rights — Contract between assured and defendant containing arbitration clause — Whether insurers could be restrained from bringing action in Italy in breach of arbitration clause — Reference to the European Court of Justice — Council Regulation44/2001,

article 1(2)(d).In August 2000 Front Comor, a vessel owned by West Tankers Inc (‘‘Tankers’’) and chartered to Erg Petroli SpA (‘‘Erg’’), collided with a jetty owned by Erg at Syracuse and caused damage. The charterparty was expressed to be governed by English law and containeda clause providing for arbitration in London. Ergclaimed upon its insurers, up to the limit of its Insurancecover and commenced arbitration proceedings againstTankers in London for the excess. Tankers counterclaimedthat it was not liable for any of the damagecaused by the collision.On 30 July 2003 the insurers, exercising their statutoryright of subrogation under Italian law,

commencedproceedings against Tankers in delict before the Tribunaledi Siracusa to recover the amounts which it hadpaid Erg under the policies. It was not disputed that theItalian court had jurisdiction over the delictual claimunder article 5(3) of the Brussels Regulation, EuropeanCouncil Regulation 44/2001.On 10 September 2004 Tankers commenced Englishproceedings against the insurers, claiming declarationsthat the dispute which was the subject of the proceedingsin Syracuse arose out of the

charterparty and thatthe insurers claiming by right of subrogation weretherefore bound by the agreement to refer it to arbitrationin London. https://www.51lunwen.org/liuxuelunwendx/Tankers also claimed an injunction torestrain the insurers from taking any further steps inrelation to the dispute except by way of arbitration andin particular requiring them to discontinue the proceedingsin Syracuse.Colman J granted the declarations and the anti-suitinjunction. The learned judge held, [2005] 2 Lloyd’sRep 257, following the decision of the Court of Appealin Through Transport Mutual Insurance Association(Eurasia) Ltd v New India Assurance Co Ltd [2005] 1Lloyd’s Rep 67, that the delictual claim transferred tothe insurers by way of subrogation was subject to thearbitration clause and that the court possessed jurisdictionto grant an anti-suit injunction because the rule inthe Brussels Regulation that the court first seised of amatter possessed exclusive jurisdiction over it did notapply to arbitration which was excluded from theRegulation by article 1(2)(d).Colman J certified three questions of law undersection 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1969which were suitable to appeal directly to the House ofLords: whether an injunction could be granted; whetherthe grant of an injunction was inconsistent with theNew York Convention on the enforcement of arbitralawards; and whether as a matter of discretion anEnglish court should refuse to restrain proceedings inanother Member State.————Held by the House of Lords (Lords NICHOLLSOF BIRKENHEAD, STEYN, HOFFMANN, RODGER OF EARLSFERRYand MANCE), that the following questionwould be referred to the European Court of Justice fora preliminary ruling: ‘‘Is it consistent with EC Regulation44/2001 for a court of a Member State to make anorder to restrain a person from commencing or

continuingproceedings in another Memb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。