Konkola Copper Mines Plc & Anor v Coromin Ltd. & Ors No.2

Konkola Copper Mines Plc & Anor v Coromin Ltd. & Ors No.2

The court held that the Zambian insurance contract contained an exclusive Zambian law and jurisdiction clause, and that the risk of inconsistent decisions or procedural inconvenience was foreseeable and created by the claimants' own contractual structure. There was no strong cause to override the jurisdiction clause. Therefore, permission to serve the Zambian insurers out of the jurisdiction was set aside.

Parties
Claimant: Konkola Copper Mines plc; Claimant: ARH Limited SA; Defendant: Coromin Ltd; Defendant: NR Defendants (2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th Defendants); Defendant: PICZ (3rd Defendant)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Commercial Insurance Dispute / Application to Set Aside Service Out of Jurisdiction and to Lift Stay
Outcome
Applications to set aside service out of jurisdiction granted; permission to join NR Defendants and PICZ set aside.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Clauses, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Forum Non Conveniens, Double Insurance, Stay of Proceedings
Commercial Law Insurance Law Conflict of Laws Jurisdiction Clauses Service Out of Jurisdiction Forum Non Conveniens Double Insurance Stay of Proceedings

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Konkola Copper Mines plc

Claimant

ARH Limited SA

Claimant

Coromin Ltd

Defendant

NR Defendants (2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th Defendants)

Defendant

PICZ (3rd Defendant)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Insurance Dispute / Application to Set Aside Service Out of Jurisdiction and to Lift Stay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service out of jurisdiction on Zambian insurers should be set aside due to exclusive Zambian law and jurisdiction clause
  2. 2 Whether the risk of inconsistent decisions justifies departure from the exclusive jurisdiction clause
  3. 3 Whether claimants can rely on procedural fragmentation they created to avoid enforcement of jurisdiction clause

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Zambian insurance contract contained an exclusive Zambian law and jurisdiction clause, and that the risk of inconsistent decisions or procedural inconvenience was foreseeable and created by the claimants' own contractual structure. There was no strong cause to override the jurisdiction clause. Therefore, permission to serve the Zambian insurers out of the jurisdiction was set aside.

Court Disposition

Applications to set aside service out of jurisdiction granted; permission to join NR Defendants and PICZ set aside.

Orders

  • Orders giving permission to join both the NR Defendants and PICZ are set aside.