Tonicstar Ltd & ors v Allianz Insurance Plc & Anor

Tonicstar Ltd & ors v Allianz Insurance Plc & Anor

The court followed the previous decision of Morison J. that clause 15.5 requires arbitrators to have at least ten years’ experience in the business of insurance or reinsurance itself, not merely legal experience. Mr. Schaff, whose experience was as counsel in insurance/reinsurance law, does not qualify. There was no sufficiently powerful reason to depart from the earlier decision, and the court’s duty as a matter of precedent is to follow it.

Parties
Claimant: Tonicstar Limited (on its own behalf and on behalf of the other corporate members of Lloyd’s Syndicates 62, 1861 and 2255); Respondent: Allianz Insurance PLC (formerly Cornhill Insurance Plc); Respondent: Sirius International Insurance Corporation (PUBL) (London Branch)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Related Application / Application for Removal of Arbitrator Under Section 24 of the Arbitration Act 1996
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Arbitrator Qualifications, Interpretation of Arbitration Clauses, Precedent and First Instance Decisions
Arbitration Insurance Law Reinsurance Arbitrator Qualifications Interpretation of Arbitration Clauses Precedent and First Instance Decisions

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tonicstar Limited (on its own behalf and on behalf of the other corporate members of Lloyd’s Syndicates 62, 1861 and 2255)

Claimant

Allianz Insurance PLC (formerly Cornhill Insurance Plc)

Respondent

Sirius International Insurance Corporation (PUBL) (London Branch)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Related Application / Application for Removal of Arbitrator Under Section 24 of the Arbitration Act 1996

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a barrister with experience in insurance/reinsurance law qualifies as an arbitrator under clause 15.5 of the Joint Excess Loss Committee Excess Loss Clauses
  2. 2 Whether the court should follow the previous first instance decision interpreting the same clause
  3. 3 Whether the court has jurisdiction to remove the arbitrator before the tribunal rules on its own jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The court followed the previous decision of Morison J. that clause 15.5 requires arbitrators to have at least ten years’ experience in the business of insurance or reinsurance itself, not merely legal experience. Mr. Schaff, whose experience was as counsel in insurance/reinsurance law, does not qualify. There was no sufficiently powerful reason to depart from the earlier decision, and the court’s duty as a matter of precedent is to follow it.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Mr. Schaff is removed as arbitrator for lack of required qualifications under clause 15.5.
  • Respondents have 30 days from the court’s decision to appoint a new arbitrator to fill the vacancy.