Youell v Kara Mara Shipping Company Ltd [QBD (Comm)]
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Aikens J |
| Judgment Date | 13 March 2000 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court) |
| Date | 13 March 2000 |
Queen's Bench Division
Before Mr Justice Aiken
Insurance - enforcing exclusive jurisdiction clause
Where an insurance policy issued by underwriters provided an exclusive jurisdiction clause in English courts subject to English law, the English court could restrain a third party outside the jurisdiction, who had obtained a judgment against the insured from the federal court in Louisana, from enforcing it against the underwriters of the policy containing that clause.
Mr Justice Aiken so held in the Commercial Court of the Queen's Bench Division, in a reserved judgment when
(i)(a) granting leave to the claimant, John Richard Ludbrooke Youell, suing as a representative of Syndicate 79 at Lloyd's and 14 others, to serve his originating summons and (b) also granting an anti-suit injunction against the defendants, Kara Mara Shipping Company Ltd, the charterers of a ship Ya Mawlaya, three managers and a mortgagee of the ship (the first to fifth defendants, the insured) and World Tanker Carriers Corporation, the sixth defendants, and
(ii) dismissing an application by the sixth defendants, to set aside the original permission granted to serve the summons outside the jurisdiction.
Mr Jonathan Gaisman, QC and Ms Rebecca Sabben-Clare for the claimants; Mr Stewart Boyd, QC and Ms Claire Blanchard for the sixth defendant; the first to fifth defendants did not appear and were not represented.
MR JUSTICE AIKEN referred to the defendants' submissions:
(i) that an injunction was a remedy which depended on there being a pre-existing cause of action against a defendant;
(ii) that a claim for an anti-suit injunction could be the sole relief sought in the originating summons and it would be a legitimate claim on that basis;
(iii) that there had been a breach of a contractual provision binding the defendant and by which the parties had agreed that claims falling within the provision should be pursued exclusively in English courts or arbitration and in those cases the prosecution of proceedings in a foreign court was an actual infringement of a legal right of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Masri v Consolidated Contractors International UK Ltd and Others (No. 2)
...an injunction can be granted.” See also OT Africa Line Ltd v Magic Sportswear Corp [2005] EWCA Civ 710, at [63], per Rix LJ; Youell v Kara Mara Shipping Co Ltd [2000] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 102, at [43], per Aikens J. 55 In some cases it will be necessary to establish a separate claim. For exampl......
-
London Steam-Ship Owners' Mutual Insurance Association Ltd v Spain and Another [QBD (Comm)]
...rather than the form of the right, and substance is closely linked to content. 94 This is supported by Aikens J's decision in Youell and others v Kara Mara [2000] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 102 in which he held that a Louisiana direct action statute created a right which was contractual in nature. The ......
-
ET Plus SA v Jean-Paul Welter & The Channel Tunnel Group Ltd
...Arts. 81 and 82 claims emerging for the first time in the PoC, rather than in the claim form: cf. Parker v Schuller (1901) 17 TLR 299; Youell v Kara Mara [2000] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 102, esp. at paras. 78 and following. Sensibly, if I may say so, Mr. Smouha did not press for the Claimants to beg......
-
Masri v Consolidated Contractors International UK Ltd and Others (No. 2)
...sought permission to add two new defendants and to plead new claims under Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty. Although in Youell v Kara Mara Shipping [2002] 2 Lloyd's Rep 102, the claimant's claim for an anti-suit injunction was treated as a cause of action for which permission to serve ou......
-
Cross‐border asset protection: an offshore perspective
...cause of action if in breach of contract aparty commences proceedings: see Youell and Others v KaraMara Shipping Co. Ltd and Others [2000] 2 Lloyd's Rep102, QBD.(67) Channel Tunnel, ref. 41, p. 362.(68) Article 24 states `Application may be made to the courts of aContracting State for such ......