Navigation Maritime Bulgare v Rustal Trading Ltd (The Ivan Zagubanski) [2000] EWHC 222 (Comm) (16 November 2000)
The claims for a declaration as to the validity and binding effect of the arbitration clause and for an anti-suit injunction fall within the arbitration exception in Article 1(4) of the Brussels and Lugano Conventions. The English court therefore has jurisdiction under CPR Part 6.20(5) and the Arbitration Practice Direction. The arbitration clause is incorporated into the bills of lading and binds the defendants, including insurers claiming by subrogation. There is no strong reason to refuse the anti-suit injunction.
- Citation
- [2000] EWHC 222 (Comm)
- Parties
- Claimant: Navigation Maritime Bulgare; Defendant: Rustal Trading Limited (Ireland); Defendant: Axa Global Risks; Defendant: AGF Mat S. A.; Defendant: S. I. A. T.; Defendant: Le Continent S. A.; Defendant: Groupama Navigation & Transports; Defendant: Rustal Trading Limited (BVI); Defendant: Hilal Bitar Group t/a Al Bitar Trading; Defendant: Al Bitar Group t/a Al Bitar Trading; Defendant: Al Bitar Trading Est
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 16 November 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Commercial Court Proceedings (anti Suit Injunction and Declaration) / Judgment on Application for Continuation of Anti Suit Injunction and Jurisdictional Challenge
- Outcome
- Anti-suit injunction continued against First to Fifth Defendants; jurisdictional challenge dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Anti Suit Injunctions, Arbitration Agreements, Jurisdiction Under Brussels and Lugano Conventions, Incorporation of Arbitration Clauses, Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Navigation Maritime Bulgare
Claimant
Rustal Trading Limited (Ireland)
Defendant
Axa Global Risks
Defendant
AGF Mat S. A.
Defendant
S. I. A. T.
Defendant
Le Continent S. A.
Defendant
Groupama Navigation & Transports
Defendant
Rustal Trading Limited (BVI)
Defendant
Hilal Bitar Group t/a Al Bitar Trading
Defendant
Al Bitar Group t/a Al Bitar Trading
Defendant
Al Bitar Trading Est
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Proceedings (anti Suit Injunction and Declaration) / Judgment on Application for Continuation of Anti Suit Injunction and Jurisdictional Challenge
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction to grant an anti-suit injunction against defendants domiciled in Brussels/Lugano Convention states
- 2 Whether claims for anti-suit injunction and declaration fall within the 'arbitration exception' in Article 1(4) of the Brussels and Lugano Conventions
- 3 Whether the arbitration clause is incorporated into the bills of lading and binds the defendants
Ratio Decidendi
The claims for a declaration as to the validity and binding effect of the arbitration clause and for an anti-suit injunction fall within the arbitration exception in Article 1(4) of the Brussels and Lugano Conventions. The English court therefore has jurisdiction under CPR Part 6.20(5) and the Arbitration Practice Direction. The arbitration clause is incorporated into the bills of lading and binds the defendants, including insurers claiming by subrogation. There is no strong reason to refuse the anti-suit injunction.
Court Disposition
Anti-suit injunction continued against First to Fifth Defendants; jurisdictional challenge dismissed.
Orders
- Continuation of anti-suit injunction against First to Fifth Defendants
- Jurisdictional challenge by First to Fifth Defendants dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment