HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd v JLT Risk Solutions Ltd

JurisdictionUK Non-devolved
Judgment Date09 April 2008
Neutral Citation[2008] UKHL 21
Date09 April 2008
CourtHouse of Lords

and another


and others


and others


and another and others


and others

(Respondents) (Conjoined Appeals)

[2008] UKHL 21

Appellate Committee

Lord Hoffmann

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers

Lord Scott of Foscote

Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe

Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury



Jonathan Sumption QC

Simon Mortimore QC

Tom Smith

(Instructed by Norton Rose LLP)

Geoffrey Vos QC

Peter Arden QC

(Instructed by Clifford Chance LLP)


William Trower QC

Jeremy Goldring

(Instructed by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer)


My Lords,


This appeal arises out of the insolvent liquidation of the HIH group of Australian insurance companies. On 15 March 2001 four of them presented winding up petitions to the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Some of their assets - mostly reinsurance claims on policies taken out in London - were situated in England. To realise and protect these assets, provisional liquidators were appointed in England. In Australia, the court has made winding up orders and appointed liquidators. The Australian judge has sent a letter of request to the High Court in London, asking that the provisional liquidators be directed, after payment of their expenses, to remit the assets to the Australian liquidators for distribution. The question in this appeal is whether the English court can and should accede to that request. The alternative is a separate liquidation and distribution of the English assets in accordance with the Insolvency Act 1986.


The English and Australian laws of corporate insolvency have a common origin and their basic principles are much the same. The general rule is that after payment of the costs of liquidation and the statutory preferred creditors, the assets are distributed pari passu among the ordinary creditors: see section 107 of the 1986 Act and section 555 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). But Australia has a different regime for insurance companies. I need not trouble your Lordships with the details. It is sufficient to say that, in broad outline, it requires assets in Australia to be applied first to the discharge of debts payable in Australia (section 116(3) of the Insurance Act 1973 (Cth)) and the proceeds of reinsurance policies to be applied in discharge of the liabilities which were reinsured (section 562A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)). It is agreed that if the English assets are sent to Australia, the outcome for creditors will be different from what it would have been if they had been distributed under the 1986 Act. Some creditors will do better and others worse. Approximate figures are given in para 17 of the judgment of the Chancellor in the Court of Appeal. Generally speaking, insurance creditors will be winners and other creditors will be losers.


The Australian court made its request pursuant to section 426(4) of the Insolvency Act 1986:

"The courts having jurisdiction in relation to insolvency law in any part of the United Kingdom shall assist the courts having the corresponding jurisdiction in…any relevant country…"


The Secretary of State has power under subsection (11) to designate a country as "relevant" and has so designated Australia. Subsection (5) describes the assistance which a UK court may give. A request from the court of a relevant country is—

"authority for the court to which the request is made to apply, in relation to any matters specified in the request, the insolvency law which is applicable by either court in relation to comparable matters falling within its jurisdiction.

In exercising its discretion under this subsection, a court shall have regard in particular to the rules of private international law."


This provision was introduced into insolvency law in consequence of a recommendation in fairly general terms by the Cork Committee in 1982 (see Report of the Review Committee on Insolvency Law and Practice (Cmnd 8858) chapter 49.) The Committee drew attention to the inadequacy of the statutory provisions for international co-operation in personal bankruptcy and their complete absence in the law of corporate insolvency.


Despite the absence of statutory provision, some degree of international co-operation in corporate insolvency had been achieved by judicial practice. This was based upon what English judges have for many years regarded as a general principle of private international law, namely that bankruptcy (whether personal or corporate) should be unitary and universal. There should be a unitary bankruptcy proceeding in the court of the bankrupt's domicile which receives world-wide recognition and it should apply universally to all the bankrupt's assets.


This was very much a principle rather than a rule. It is heavily qualified by exceptions on pragmatic grounds; elsewhere I have described it as an aspiration: see Cambridge Gas Transportation Corporation v Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Navigator Holdings plc [2006] UKPC 26; [2007] 1 AC 508, 517 at para 17. Professor Jay Westbrook, a distinguished American writer on international insolvency has called it a principle of "modified universalism": see also Professor Ian Fletcher, Insolvency in Private International Law (2nd ed 2005) at pp. 15-17. Full universalism can be attained only by international treaty. Nevertheless, even in its modified and pragmatic form, the principle is a potent one.


In the late nineteenth century there developed a judicial practice, based upon the principle of universalism, by which the English winding up of a foreign company was treated as ancillary to a winding up by the court of its domicile. There is no doubt that an English court has jurisdiction to wind up such a company if it has assets here or some other sufficient connection with this country: Re Drax Holdings Ltd Re InPower Ltd [2003] EWHC 2743 (Ch), [2004] 1 WLR 1049. And in theory, such an order operates universally, applies to all the foreign company's assets and brings into play the full panoply of powers and duties under the Insolvency Act 1986 like any other winding up order: see Millett J in Re International Tin Council [1987] Ch 419, 446-447:

"The statutory trusts extend to [foreign] assets, and so does the statutory obligation to collect and realise them and to deal with their proceeds in accordance with the statutory scheme."


But the judicial practice which developed in such a case was to limit the powers and duties of the liquidator to collecting the English assets and settling a list of the creditors who sent in proofs. The court, so to speak, "disapplied" the statutory trusts and duties in relation to the foreign assets of foreign companies. This practice was based partly upon the pragmatic consideration that any foreign country which applied our own rules of private international law would not recognise the title of an English ancillary liquidator to the company's assets. But it was also based upon the principle of universalism. In Re Matheson Brothers Ltd (1884) 27 Ch D 225 Kay J appointed a provisional liquidator, as in this case, to protect the English assets of a New Zealand company which was being wound up in New Zealand. He said, at pp 230-231:

"[What] is the effect of the winding up order which it is said has been made in New Zealand? This court upon principles of international comity, would no doubt have great regard to that winding up order and would be influenced thereby [but there was nevertheless jurisdiction to make a winding up order, and therefore to appoint a provisional liquidator, to protect the English assets]…I consider that I am justified in taking steps to secure the English assets until I see that proceedings are taken in the New Zealand liquidation to make the English assets available for the English creditors pari passu with the creditors in New Zealand."


It seems clear from the last sentence that Kay J envisaged the English assets being distributed in the New Zealand liquidation, provided that English creditors shared pari passu with New Zealand creditors. It was on the authority of this and similar statements in other cases that Sir Richard Scott V-C held in Re Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (No 10) [1997] Ch 213, 247 that an English court had power in an ancillary liquidation (provisional or final) to authorise the English liquidators to transmit the English assets to the principal liquidators. The basis for the practice could only be what Kay J called principles of international comity, the desirability of a single bankruptcy administration which dealt with all the company's assets.


It is this jurisdiction, reinforced by the provisions of section 426, which the Australian liquidators (supported by two Australian insurance creditors who stand to gain from the application of Australian law) invite the court to exercise. But David Richards J, in a judgment which carefully examined all the arguments and authorities, held that the jurisdiction did not extend to authorising the assets to be remitted to principal liquidators for distribution which was not pari passu but gave preference to some creditors to the prejudice of others. The Court of Appeal (Sir Andrew Morritt C, Tuckey and Carnwath LJJ) held that there was such a jurisdiction, which might be exercised if distribution in the country of the principal liquidation produced advantages for the non-preferred creditors which counteracted the prejudice they suffered. But the present case offered no such advantages. The appeal was therefore dismissed.


My Lords, I would entirely accept that there are no administrative savings to be gained from remitting the assets to Australia. In order to avoid delay in distributing the available assets, the English provisional...

To continue reading

Request your trial
83 cases
  • Re HSH Cayman
    • Cayman Islands
    • Court of Appeal (Cayman Islands)
    • 24 Mayo 2010
    ...Petroleum Prods. Ltd., In re, [1980] 1 W.L.R. 86; [1979] 3 All E.R. 297, referred to. (8) HIH Casualty & Gen. Ins. Ltd., In re, [2008] 1 W.L.R. 852; [2008] Bus. L.R. 905; [2008] 3 All E.R. 869; [2008] BCC 349; [2008] BPIR 581; [2008] Lloyd”s Rep. I.R. 756; [2008] UKHL 21, distinguished. (9)......
  • New Cap Reinsurance Corporation Ltd ((in Liquidation)) v Grant; Rubin v Eurofinance SA
    • United Kingdom
    • Supreme Court
    • 24 Octubre 2012
    ...powers to set aside voidable dispositions, which may differ very considerably from those in the English statutory scheme": In re HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd [2008] UKHL 21, [2008] 1 WLR 852, para 19, per Lord 16 Fifth, there has been a trend, but only a trend, to what is called......
  • Picard v Primeo Fund
    • Cayman Islands
    • Grand Court (Cayman Islands)
    • 14 Enero 2013
    ...(7) Founding Partners Global Fund Ltd., Re, [2011] Bda LR 22, applied. (8) HIH Casualty & Gen. Ins. Ltd., In re, McGrath v. Riddell, [2008] 1 W.L.R. 852; [2008] 3 All E.R. 869; [2012] 2 BCLC 655; [2008] BCC 349; [2008] UKHL 21, followed. (9) HSH Cayman, In re, 2010 (1) CILR 375, considered.......
  • Ackers (as Joint Foreign Representative) v Saad Investments Company Ltd (in Official Liquidation) (A Company Registered in the Cayman Islands)
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • Invalid date
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 firm's commentaries
  • In What Circumstances Can U.S. And Other Foreign Judgments Be Enforced Against
    • Cayman Islands
    • Mondaq Cayman Islands
    • 1 Noviembre 2012
    ...BCLC 141, PC (Isle of Man). 26 Re HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd and other companies; McMahon and others v McGrath and another [2008] 3 All ER 869, 27 Cambridge Gas Transport Corp v Navigator Holdings plc Creditors' Committee [2007] 2 BCLC 141, PC (Isle of Man),148 28 Smellie CJ, "A......
  • In What Circumstances Can U.S. And Other Foreign Judgements Be Enforced Against Cayman Islands Hedge Funds?
    • Cayman Islands
    • Mondaq Cayman Islands
    • 5 Noviembre 2012
    ...2 BCLC 141, PC (Isle of Man). Re HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd and other companies; McMahon and others v McGrath and another [2008] 3 All ER 869, Cambridge Gas Transport Corp v Navigator Holdings plc Creditors' Committee [2007] 2 BCLC 141, PC (Isle of Man), 148 Smellie CJ, "A Cayma......
  • Insolvency: How Strong And How Long Is 'The Golden Thread'?
    • Jersey
    • Mondaq Jersey
    • 10 Junio 2014
    ...impact of Rubin v Eurofinance SA; New Cap Re-insurance Corporation v Grant [2012] UKSC 46, Re HIH Casualty and General Insurance Limited [2008] UKHL 21, Cambridge Gas Transportation Corporation v Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Navigator Holdings plc [2006] UK PC 26 and HSBC Ba......
  • English High Court Assists Australian Court To Effect Clawback From Lloyd's Syndicate
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq United Kingdom
    • 8 Abril 2011
    ...v. Eurofinance SA [2011] 2 WLR 121 4. Following the approach of Lords Hoffman and Walker in Re HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd [2008] 1 WLR 852, as the Court of Appeal have done in Rubin v. Eurofinance SA [2011] 2 WLR Mayer Brown is a global legal services organization comprising leg......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 books & journal articles
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2014, December 2014
    • 1 Diciembre 2014
    ...v Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Navigator Holdings plc[2007] 1 AC 508; see also Re HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd[2008] 1 WLR 852. 83Cambridge Gas Transportation Corp v Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Navigator Holdings plc[2007] 1 AC 508 at [22]. 84Rubin......
  • Modified Universalisms & The Role of Local Legal Culture in the Making of Cross-Border Insolvency Law.
    • United States
    • American Bankruptcy Law Journal Vol. 93 No. 1, January 2019
    • 1 Enero 2019
    ...universalism" is not understood in quite the same way in the U.K. as it is understood in much of American legal discourse. (208) [2008] 1 WLR 852 (209) Id. at [30]. (210) Id. at [59], [61]-[62] (Lord Scott), [66], [75]-[77], [82] (Lord Neuberger); Andrew Godwin et al. The Inherent Power of ......
  • Sovereign Immunity Tests Bankruptcy's Least Contested Axioms
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Bankruptcy Developments Journal No. 39-1, March 2023
    • Invalid date
    ...of the debts.").187. The Code is by no means unique among modern bankruptcy and insolvency regimes in this regard. See McGrath v. Riddell [2008] UKHL 21, [2008] 1 WLR 852 (appeal taken from England) ("The English and Australian laws of corporate insolvency have a common origin and their bas......
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2008, December 2008
    • 1 Diciembre 2008
    ...LR 5 Eq 223 at 226, discussed below. 131 For example, this, with subtle variations, is the understanding espoused in McGrath v Riddell[2008] UKHL 21, by Lord Hoffmann at [2], [22], and [32]; and by Lord Scott at [49] and [62]. 132 This principle is exemplified by IA 1986 s 175(2)(a). CfMcGr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT