C v D (London arbitration clause)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 December 2007 |
| Date | 05 December 2007 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Sir Anthony Clarke, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Longmore and Lord Justice Jacob.
Although the governing law of a liability insurance contract was that of New York, where the contract contained a London arbitration clause, the parties were to be taken to have agreed that the arbitration award could be challenged only in English law proceedings because of the choice of London as the seat of the arbitration.
The Court of Appeal so held, dismissing the appeal, except for the costs order, of the defendant, D, against the order of Mr Justice Cooke on June 28, 2007 granting the claimant, C, a final anti-suit injunction to prevent the defendant from challenging a partial arbitration award in favour of the claimant in the United States courts.
The hearing was held in private and the parties were not identified.
Mr Jonathan Hirst, QC and Mr Robert Howe for the defendant; Mr Bernard Eder, QC and Mr Stephen Houseman for the claimant.
LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE said that the striking feature of the Bermuda Form was its requirement for the parties to arbitrate in London but its provision of the proper law of the insurance contract to be the internal laws of New York.
The defendant insured the claimant for three years under a claims made policy on the Bermuda Form. During the policy period the claimant paid out on claims and made demand for payment which the defendant refused. The claimant initiated arbitration against the defendant in London. The defendant raised four defences to the claim for indemnification. The tribunal heard the first three and deferred the fourth.
The tribunal issued a partial award, ruling that the claimant succeeded in full on its claim and was entitled to recover. The defendant intimated its intention to apply to a United States federal court on the basis that the arbitrators had manifestly disregarded New York law. In consequence the claimant was granted an anti-suit injunction.
The judge held that the choice of England as the seat of the arbitration was determinative in that the parties had expressly or impliedly agreed that any proceedings seeking to attack or set aside the partial award would be only those permitted by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sheffield United Football Club Ltd v West Ham United Football Club Plc [QBD (Comm)]
...arbitral tribunal is England (see Rule K 9) that is an implied choice of England as a forum for remedies seeking to challenge the award; see C v D [2008] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 239 at paragraph 17 per Longmore 7 It is submitted on behalf of West Ham that Rule K does not, on its true construction, ......
-
John P. Figura, You're in the Army Now: Borrowed Servants, Dual Servants, and Torts Committed by Contractors' Employees in the Theaters of U.s. Military Operations
...borne by the firm). 103 James Risen & David Johnston, Justice Department Briefed Congress on Legal Obstacles in Blackwater Case, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 16, 2008, at A12 (reporting uncertainty that Blackwater guards could be prosecuted under federal law); Posting of Laura Dickinson to Balkinizatio......