Public Joint Stock Company ("Rosgosstrakh") v Starr Syndicate Ltd & Ors

Public Joint Stock Company ("Rosgosstrakh") v Starr Syndicate Ltd & Ors

The claimant failed to establish that the defences of lack of jurisdiction and bias had no real prospect of success. There are substantial conflicts in expert evidence regarding Russian law and the jurisdiction of the KM Court, and credible allegations of bias and improper influence require a full trial. Summary judgment is inappropriate given the complexity and factual disputes.

Parties
Claimant: Public Joint Stock Company Rosgosstrakh; Defendant: Starr Syndicate Limited; Defendant: Dornoch Limited; Defendant: Caitlin Insurance Company (UK) Ltd; Defendant: Antares Underwriting Limited; Defendant: Antares Capital Limited; Defendant: Treimco Limited; Defendant: Antares Capital III Limited; Defendant: F&G UK Underwriters Limited; Defendant: April Grange Limited; Defendant: QBE Corporate Limited; Defendant: Kiln Underwriting Limited; Defendant: ICP Capital Limited; Defendant: SCOR Underwriting Limited; Defendant: Munchener Ruckversicherungs-Gesellschaft AG; Defendant: Oriental Insurance Company Limited; Defendant: New Indian Assurance Co Ltd; Defendant: General Insurance Corporation of India; Defendant: Assicurazioni Generali S. P. A; Defendant: Swiss RE Europe S. A; Defendant: Starr Insurance and Reinsurance Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
summary judgment application dismissed
Legal Topics
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Jurisdiction, Bias and Fraud in Foreign Judgments, Summary Judgment Standards
Private International Law Insurance Law Civil Procedure Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Jurisdiction Bias and Fraud in Foreign Judgments Summary Judgment Standards

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 6 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Public Joint Stock Company Rosgosstrakh

Claimant

Starr Syndicate Limited

Defendant

Dornoch Limited

Defendant

Caitlin Insurance Company (UK) Ltd

Defendant

Antares Underwriting Limited

Defendant

Antares Capital Limited

Defendant

Treimco Limited

Defendant

Antares Capital III Limited

Defendant

F&G UK Underwriters Limited

Defendant

April Grange Limited

Defendant

QBE Corporate Limited

Defendant

Kiln Underwriting Limited

Defendant

ICP Capital Limited

Defendant

SCOR Underwriting Limited

Defendant

Munchener Ruckversicherungs-Gesellschaft AG

Defendant

Oriental Insurance Company Limited

Defendant

New Indian Assurance Co Ltd

Defendant

General Insurance Corporation of India

Defendant

Assicurazioni Generali S. P. A

Defendant

Swiss RE Europe S. A

Defendant

Starr Insurance and Reinsurance Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Russian KM Court had jurisdiction under Russian law for the purposes of recognition and enforcement in England
  2. 2 Whether the Russian judgments were procured by bias or improper influence and thus unenforceable under English law

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to establish that the defences of lack of jurisdiction and bias had no real prospect of success. There are substantial conflicts in expert evidence regarding Russian law and the jurisdiction of the KM Court, and credible allegations of bias and improper influence require a full trial. Summary judgment is inappropriate given the complexity and factual disputes.

Court Disposition

summary judgment application dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant's application for summary judgment is refused.
  • The matter will proceed to trial for determination of jurisdiction and bias issues.