Jurisdiction decisions in the shipping context follow each other in close succession. Yesterday we had another, from Males J, of some interest to insurers: namely, Griffin Underwriting Ltd v Varouxakis (The Free Goddess)  EWHC 3259 (Comm).
The Free Goddess, a 22,000 dwt bulker owned by Freeseas, was seized by Somali pirates while en route to Thailand with steel coils. K & R insurers Griffin, based in Guernsey but doing business in London, paid out something over $6 million to free her, whereupon she sailed to Oman. Griffin clearly had a right to take over from Freeseas a pretty cast-iron GA claim against cargo interests: on arrival it duly entered into a settlement agreement with Freeseas under which Freeseas agreed to furnish all assistance, including preservation of security, in claiming GA and also to account to Griffin for all sums received on that basis. GA, as might be expected, was settlable and payable in London.
According to Griffin’s (as yet unestablished) allegations, Freeseas did no such thing. Instead of the obvious course of oncarrying the cargo to Thailand and claiming GA in due course, it sold the ship in Oman, destroying any security for GA and providing cargo with a counterclaim for damages which was likely to dwarf the GA liability in any case. In addition it had allegedly trousered a large sum in interim GA contributions without accounting for it.
Freeseas not being worth powder and shot, Griffin sued one Ion Varouxakis, the Greek-domiciled owner of the company, for inducing it to break the settlement agreement. They alleged that the damage had been suffered in London and therefore they could invoke Art.7, the tort article of Brussels I Recast. Mr Varouxakis insisted that he could only be sued in Greece, arguing for good measure that this was a suit by an underwriter in a matter relating to insurance under Art.14, so the other exceptions did not apply.
In fact Mr Varouxakis was held to have waived any jurisdiction point, so the claim is going ahead in London anyway. But Males J did go on to give a view on the other points. On the issue of the loss of the right to GA, he regarded the issue of where the loss had been suffered as finely balanced, but expressed the view that the direct damage had been suffered in Oman, where he opined that the right to enforce GA had been effectively lost: the fact that GA had not been paid in London he regarded as a remoter consequence and not in account because of decisions such as Kronhofer v Mayer  All ER (EC) 939. So there would have been no jurisdiction. On the other hand, he thought the loss had been suffered in London as regarded the failure to account, and so would have allowed the claim under that head to go ahead on that head in any event. As for the suggestion that this was a matter relating to insurance, he smartly rebuffed the point: insurance might be the background, but this arose out of an independent settlement agreement.
The second point was fairly obvious: if someone infringes my right to an accounting in London, it is difficult to think of anywhere apart from London where the damage occurs. The third is also welcome: the insurance rules under under Art.14 are ill-thought-out even by Euro-standards, and anything that prevents their becoming any more bloated than they already are can only be a good thing.
This blog is less sure about the first. Saying the damage occurred in Oman gets pretty close to conflating damage with the act giving rise to it; it also means that the place of the damage in cases of this sort becomes wildly arbitrary, depending on which port a vessel happens to be in at the time. On the other hand, if GA is settled and negotiated in London, it seems fairly convincing to argue that preventing it being settled and paid there causes a direct loss within the Square Mile. Unfortunately, because the claimants won in any case, we are unlikely to see an appeal here. But this shouldn’t be regarded as necessarily the last word.
Last year we dealt here with Teare J’s meticulous decision in Aspen Underwriting Ltd & Ors v Kairos Shipping Ltd  EWHC 1904 (Comm), in which following the Atlantik Confidence debacle, hull underwriters, having previously paid out on the orders of her owners’ (Dutch) bank under an insurance assignment provision, now sued the bank to recover their money on the basis that the ship had been deliberately scuttled. The issue was whether the bank could insist on being sued in the Netherlands on the basis of Art.4 of Brussels I Recast. The decision was that most claims, including those based on unjust enrichment, had to be brought in the Netherlands. Howver, claims based on tortious misrepresentation and under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 could be brought here. The fact that such claims related to insurance under Art.14 was no bar, since there was no question of a large Dutch bank being a weaker party who, according to Recital 18 to the Regulation, needed to be protected from the machinations of big bad insurers.
The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal (seeAspen Underwriting Ltd & Ors v Credit Europe Bank NV  EWCA Civ 2590). On most points it simply said that the Judge had got it absolutely right. The only exception was that it was not open to a judge, consitently with Euro-law, to take the sensible view and decline to apply Art.14 to anyone he thouht was not in fact a weaker party. But this did not matter, since in Kabeg v Mutuelles Du Mans Assurances (Case C-340/16)  I.L. Pr. 31 the ECJ Advocate-General had since Teare J’s judgment accepted that Art.14 could be disapplied to a subrogee “regularly involved in the commercial or otherwise professional settlement of insurance-related claims who voluntarily assumed the realisation of the claim as party of its commercial or otherwise professional activity”. This was near enough to the position of the bank here to justify ignoring Art.14.
Some good news, in other words, for marine underwriters trying to get their money back from those acting for crooks. On the other had, the moral we advanced in our previous article still stands: all policies in future ought to contain a term, rigorously enforced, stating that no monies will be paid out save against a signed receipt specifically submitting to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts in respect of any subsequent dispute respecting the payment or the policy generally.
They came, they argued, they agreed (but now minus Raab and McVey).
This evening the Cabinet signed up to the Draft Withdrawal Agreement, all 586 pages of it – and also the seven page outline of the Political Declaration on the future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union.
All eyes are now focussed on the special status of Northern Ireland in the ‘backstop’ in the Agreement and on the inability of the UK unilaterally to withdraw from that agreement in article 21 of the Northern Ireland Protocol.
Less controversial are the provisions of the Agreement on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, and Insolvency that are to be found in Articles 66 and 67, as follows.
Applicable law in contractual and non-contractual matters
In the United Kingdom, the following acts shall apply as follows:
(a) Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council shall apply in respect of contracts concluded before the end of the transition period;
(b) Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council shall apply in respect of events giving rise to damage, where such events occurred before the end of the transition period.
Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judicial decisions, and related cooperation between central authorities
- In the United Kingdom, as well as in the Member States in situations involving the United Kingdom, in respect of legal proceedings instituted before the end of the transition period and in respect of proceedings or actions that are related to such legal proceedings pursuant to Articles 29, 30 and 31 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament …the following acts or provisions shall apply:
(a) the provisions regarding jurisdiction of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012
- In the United Kingdom, as well as in the Member States in situations involving the United Kingdom, the following provisions shall apply as follows:
(c) Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council shall apply to insolvency proceedings, and actions referred to in Article 6(1) of that Regulation, provided that the main proceedings were opened before the end of the transition period;
For financial service providers, the following statement on p2 of the Political Declaration is of interest.
“Commencement of equivalence assessments by both Parties as soon as possible after the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the Union, endeavouring to conclude these assessments before the end of June 2020.”
On 13 Sept 2018 the UK government stated that in the event of a no-deal Brexit, it would repeal most of the existing civil judicial cooperation rules and instead use the domestic rules which each UK legal system currently applies in relation to non-EU countries. This is due to the lack of reciprocity from EU Member States that would pertain after ‘exit day’.
So, for the bin, would be:
The 2012 Brussels Regulation (Recast). Back to common law. The return of the anti-suit injunction to protect London arbitration agreements from suits commenced in EU states.
The Enforcement Order, Order for Payment and Small Claims Regulations: which establish EU procedures for dealing with, respectively, uncontested debts and claims worth less than EUR5,000
The EU/Denmark Agreement: which provides rules to decide where a case would be heard when it raises cross-border issues between Denmark and EU countries, and the recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments between the EU and Denmark
The Lugano Convention: which is the basis of our civil judicial relationship with Norway, Iceland and Switzerland.
Most of the Insolvency Regulation, which covers the jurisdictional rules, applicable law and recognition of cross-border insolvency proceedings, although the EU rules that provide for the UK courts to have jurisdiction where a company or individual is based in the UK will be retained.
In addition, last year shipping minister John Hayes told members of the UK Major Ports Group that the hated 2017 Port Services Regulation will be “consigned to the dustbin” in the UK due to Brexit.
Staying out of the bin will be Rome I and Rome II on choice of law in contract and non-contractual matters. No reciprocity is involved with these regulations.
The Government intends the UK to accede to the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements in its own right and anticipates that the convention would come into force across the UK by 1 April 2019. This is somewhat of a surprise as article 31 (a) provides the convention to come into effect for each state ratifying it on the first day of the month following the expiration of three months after the deposit of its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession. So, 1 July 2019.
The Convention does not apply to: consumer or employment contracts; insolvency; carriage of passengers or goods; maritime pollution; anti-trust/competition; rights in rem in immovable property, and tenancies of immovable property; the validity, nullity or dissolution of legal persons, and the validity of decisions of their organs; various matters concerning the validity or infringement of intellectual property rights; the validity of entries in public registers; arbitration and related proceedings
News last Friday that under the 2011 Law for Prevention of Damage to State of Israel through Boycott an Israeli Court has awarded damages of $19,000 plus costs against two New Zealanders who posted a tweet urging the popular chanteuse, Lorde, to cancel her planned concerts in Israel (which she did). The Israeli law is of universal effect. However, the judgment will not be enforceable in New Zealand which does not have a reciprocal treaty with Israel for recognition and enforcement of judgments and where the common law principle applies that absent presence by the defendant in the foreign state giving the judgment or submission to its jurisdiction the local court will not grant recognition to the foreign judgment.
The same would apply were a similar judgment to be given against UK tweeters. Although the UK does have reciprocal arrangements with Israel for recognition and enforcement of judgments under The Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Order (Israel) Order 1971 SI 1971/1039, the common law rule on recognition is applied in article 4(1). Additionally, article 3(4)(d) precludes recognition of a judgment which would be contrary to public policy.
In a case decided today, Hardy Exploration & Production (India) Inc v Government of India  EWHC 1916 (Comm), IISTL member Peter Macdonald-Eggers QC in his judicial capacity faced a nice problem concerning the situs of a debt (vital for issues of third party debt orders, and also issues such as confiscation). We were always told that this was where the debtor was resident, that is, where the debt was recoverable (most recently in Taurus Petroleum Ltd v State Oil Marketing Co  UKSC 64, noted here in this blog). But this can be ambiguous: what if the debtor resides in Ruritania and yet the debt, for example because of an exclusive jurisdiction clause, is recoverable only in Utopia? In this case the answer now seems to be Utopia.
In the Hardy case a claimant had the benefit of an arbitration award for $70 million or so against the Indian government. The government was for its part owed a tidy sum by an indirectly state-owned corporation incorporated in London and doing business there: but the contract creating the debt had what was effectively an Indian exclusive jurisdiction clause. Could a third party debt order be made against the corporation on the basis that the debt was situated in England? No: the debt fell to be regarded as situated in India and beyond the English court’s reach.
On the basis that this blog is for busy practitioners, we will leave it at that. For those interested, there is a great deal more in the judgment: a lot of scholarship, and also more about the third party debt order jurisdiction generally. Happy reading.
It’s hardly news when the ECJ follows its advocate-general. But it has just done so in Zurich Insurance and Metso Minerals  EUECJ C-88/17. If goods are carried multimodally from Finland to England by an English carrier, and stolen in England (as they always seem to be), Art.7(1) of Brussels I Recast says the contract fell to be performed in either England (destination) or Finland (origin) and the owner can sue in either at his option. Just as with air transport: flightright GmbH v Air Nostrum (C-274/16)  EUECJ 274/16. And … that’s it. For comment on the Advocate-General’s opinion, see our blog here.
AAA v Unilever  EWCA Civ 1532 is the third Court of Appeal decision in the trio of anchor defendant cases (the others being Lungowe v Vedanta and Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell) that came before the courts last year raising the issue of when a parent company owes a duty of care to persons affected by the activities of its overseas subsidiary. The claimants were workers on a tea plantation in Kenyan who had suffered from criminal acts following the violence that followed the 2007 elections, which was on tribal lines. The issue was whether the parent company and the subsidiary owed a duty of care to people on the estate to protect them from unlawful violence. The claimants conceded that Kenyan law applied but it was accepted that English law was very persuasive in Kenya and Kenyan law would follow English law on the imposition of a duty of care on the parent company. Elizabeth Laing J admitted the possibility of a duty of care being owed by the parent company but the claim foundered on the issue of foreseeability of the type of harm suffered by the claimants.
Last week the Court of Appeal dismissed the claimant’s appeal on the grounds that there was no arguable case that the parent company owed a duty of care to the claimants. Sales LJ, giving the judgment of the Court, held that a parent company could owe a direct duty of care to those affected by the activities of its subsidiary in two situations: (i) where the parent has in substance taken over the management of the relevant activity of the subsidiary in place of, or jointly with, the subsidiary’s own management; or (ii) where the parent has given relevant advice to the subsidiary about how it should manage a particular risk.
The appellants accepted that they could not say that their claim was within the first category as the management of the affairs of Unilever’s Kenyan subsidiary, UTKL, was conducted by the management of UTKL. Instead, they sought to bring their claim within the second category, relying upon advice which they say was given by Unilever to UTKL in relation to the management of risk in respect of political unrest and violence in Kenya. However, the witness evidence and the documentary evidence, showed that UTKL did not receive relevant advice from Unilever in relation to such matters, and that UTKL understood that it was responsible itself for devising its own risk management policy and for handling the severe crisis which arose in late 2007, and that it did so.
So far, the three anchor defendant cases on whether a parent company owes a duty of care in respect of the activities of its subsidiary company have seen two decisions against the claimants, and one Vedanta v Lungowe in their favour. In Vedanta permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was granted on 23 March 2018, and in Okpabi the claimants have stated their intent to apply for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court. We are likely to see a lot more on this question in the coming months.
Confirmation from Males J today in Nori Holdings Ltd & Ors v PJSC Bank Otkritie  EWHC 1343 (Comm) of what we all suspected: you can’t injunct EU / Lugano proceedings in support of arbitration. The facts aren’t that interesting. Essentially an ailing Russian bank was seeking to undo the effects of a debt restructuring agreement entered into with a number of its borrowers and their sureties, members of the O1 group. To that end it sued in Russia and Cyprus. The present claimants, borrowers and sureties, sought anti-suit injunctions on the basis that the claims were the subject of valid arbitration agreements. It got injunctions in respect of the Russian proceedings; we say no more.
As for the Cypriot proceedings, the bank understandably invoked West Tankers Inc v Allianz SpA (Case C-185/07)  ECR I-00663 and its holding that any intra-EU anti-suit proceedings unacceptably infringed EU full faith and credit under the then Brussels I, not to mention EU courts’ powers to decide on their own jurisdiction. The claimants countered, as might be expected, with the slightly curious remarks of the Advocate-General in the Gazprom OAO case (Case C-536/13) that suggested Recital (12) in Brussels I Recast had cast doubt on the West Tankers holding. Males J subjected the reasoning of the Advocate-General to searching scrutiny at -. His conclusion, though judicious, was pretty blunt: the Advocate-General was simply wrong. There was no room for any inference of an intent to depart from West Tankers.
So now we know. Professors may have lost a useful examination question: but for the rest of us, we know where we stand. And a good thing too.