Gard Marine & Energy Ltd v Lloyd Tunnicliffe & Ors

Gard Marine & Energy Ltd v Lloyd Tunnicliffe & Ors

Gard failed to establish a good arguable case for jurisdiction under Article 5(1) as there was insufficient evidence of a binding custom or contractual obligation to pay claims in London. However, Gard established a good arguable case for jurisdiction under Article 6(1) because the claims against Advent and Glacier Re turned on the same contractual construction issue, with a real risk of irreconcilable judgments if heard separately. The English court therefore has jurisdiction over Glacier Re.

Parties
Claimant: Gard Marine & Energy Limited; First Defendant: Lloyd Tunnicliffe (on behalf of all members of Lloyd’s Syndicate 780 for 2005 year); Second Defendant: Glacier Reinsurance AG; Third Defendant: Agnew Higgins Pickering & Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Commercial Reinsurance Dispute / Jurisdictional Challenge
Outcome
Jurisdictional challenge dismissed; English court has jurisdiction over Glacier Re.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Under Lugano Convention, Applicable Law Under Rome Convention, Reinsurance Contract Interpretation
Private International Law Insurance Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Under Lugano Convention Applicable Law Under Rome Convention Reinsurance Contract Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gard Marine & Energy Limited

Claimant

Lloyd Tunnicliffe (on behalf of all members of Lloyd’s Syndicate 780 for 2005 year)

First Defendant

Glacier Reinsurance AG

Second Defendant

Agnew Higgins Pickering & Company Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Reinsurance Dispute / Jurisdictional Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over Glacier Re under Article 5(1) and/or 6(1) of the Lugano Convention
  2. 2 What is the applicable law governing the Glacier Re reinsurance contract

Ratio Decidendi

Gard failed to establish a good arguable case for jurisdiction under Article 5(1) as there was insufficient evidence of a binding custom or contractual obligation to pay claims in London. However, Gard established a good arguable case for jurisdiction under Article 6(1) because the claims against Advent and Glacier Re turned on the same contractual construction issue, with a real risk of irreconcilable judgments if heard separately. The English court therefore has jurisdiction over Glacier Re.

Court Disposition

Jurisdictional challenge dismissed; English court has jurisdiction over Glacier Re.

Orders

  • The court rejects Glacier Re's jurisdictional challenge.
  • The stay of proceedings against Glacier Re is lifted.