The defendant insurers had issued a certificate in respect of a cargo of cotton pellets which were the subject of a cif sale and had been damaged in the course of a voyage between Abidjan and Rouen. In June 2002 the insurers brought proceedings in Italy against the buyer who was a party to the contract of insurance contained in the certificate claiming that the buyer’s claim was time barred and that the damage was caused by inherent vice. In October 2002 the buyer brought proceedings in England claiming an indemnity in respect of the cargo damage and also that the contract contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause which required the matter to be decided in England or at least entitled the buyer to sue the insurers in England. The insurers applied to the English court for a determination that the English court did not have jurisdiction or alternatively for a stay pursuant to what was then Article 21 of the Brussels Convention.
Held: The English court did have jurisdiction (although not exclusive jurisdiction) but a stay was granted because the central or essential issue was whether the insurers were liable for cargo damage and that was the same both in Italy and in England.
Judges:
Andrew Smith J
Citations:
[2003] EWHC 863 (Comm), [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 377, [2003] 2 LLR 377, [2003] ILPr 43, [2003] 2 CLC 802
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Starlight Shipping Co v Allianz Marine and Aviation Versicherungs Ag and Others CA 20-Dec-2012
The Alexander T, owned by the appellant and insured by the respondents was a total loss. The insurers resisted payment, the appellant came to allege improperly, and the parties had settled the claim on full payment under a Tomlin Order. The owners . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insurance
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.182608