Amlin Corporate Member Ltd & Ors v Oriental Assurance Corporation [2012] EWCA Civ 1341 (17 October 2012)

Amlin Corporate Member Ltd & Ors v Oriental Assurance Corporation [2012] EWCA Civ 1341 (17 October 2012)

The Court of Appeal held that the judge correctly exercised his discretion in refusing a stay, applying the principle that a stay of proceedings properly brought in England should only be granted in rare and compelling circumstances, and that the presence of an exclusive English jurisdiction clause and the modest risk of inconsistent decisions did not justify a stay.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Civ 1341
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Amlin Corporate Member Limited (on its own behalf and on behalf of all other members of Syndicate 2001 at Lloyd's in relation to policy reference B0738MC000720B); Respondent/claimant: Talbot 2002 Underwriting Capital Limited (on its own behalf and on behalf of all other members of Syndicate 1183 at Lloyd's in relation to policy reference B0738MC000720B); Respondent/claimant: Limit (No. 2) Limited (on its own behalf and on behalf of all other members of Syndicate 1036 at Lloyd's in relation to policy reference B0738MC000720B); Respondent/claimant: Aegis Electric & Gas International Services Limited (on its own behalf and on behalf of all other members of Syndicate 1225 at Lloyd's in relation to policy reference B0738MC000720B); Respondent/claimant: Novae Corporate Underwriting Limited (on its own behalf and on behalf of all other members of Syndicate 2007 at Lloyd's in relation to policy reference B0738MC000720B); Respondent/claimant: Brit UW Limited (on its own behalf and on behalf of all other members of Syndicate 2987 at Lloyd's in relation to policy reference B0738MC000720B); Appellant/defendant: Oriental Assurance Corporation
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (commercial Court)
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses, Follow Settlements Clause, Case Management Discretion, Risk of Inconsistent Judgments
Insurance Law Reinsurance Law Civil Procedure Stay of Proceedings Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses Follow Settlements Clause Case Management Discretion Risk of Inconsistent Judgments

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amlin Corporate Member Limited (on its own behalf and on behalf of all other members of Syndicate 2001 at Lloyd's in relation to policy reference B0738MC000720B)

Respondent/claimant

Talbot 2002 Underwriting Capital Limited (on its own behalf and on behalf of all other members of Syndicate 1183 at Lloyd's in relation to policy reference B0738MC000720B)

Respondent/claimant

Limit (No. 2) Limited (on its own behalf and on behalf of all other members of Syndicate 1036 at Lloyd's in relation to policy reference B0738MC000720B)

Respondent/claimant

Aegis Electric & Gas International Services Limited (on its own behalf and on behalf of all other members of Syndicate 1225 at Lloyd's in relation to policy reference B0738MC000720B)

Respondent/claimant

Novae Corporate Underwriting Limited (on its own behalf and on behalf of all other members of Syndicate 2007 at Lloyd's in relation to policy reference B0738MC000720B)

Respondent/claimant

Brit UW Limited (on its own behalf and on behalf of all other members of Syndicate 2987 at Lloyd's in relation to policy reference B0738MC000720B)

Respondent/claimant

Oriental Assurance Corporation

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court (commercial Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English proceedings should be stayed pending the outcome of related proceedings in the Philippines
  2. 2 Whether the presence of an exclusive English jurisdiction clause precludes a stay
  3. 3 Whether the follow settlements clause requires reinsurers to await the outcome of the underlying insurance claims before seeking declaratory relief

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the judge correctly exercised his discretion in refusing a stay, applying the principle that a stay of proceedings properly brought in England should only be granted in rare and compelling circumstances, and that the presence of an exclusive English jurisdiction clause and the modest risk of inconsistent decisions did not justify a stay.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; no stay of English proceedings granted.