Technip Saudi Arabia Limited v The Mediterranean & Gulf Insurance and Reinsurance Co
[2024] EWCA Civ 481
Al Mana Lifestyle Trading LLC & Ors v United Fidelity Insurance Company PSC & Ors
31 January 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 61
Court of Appeal
A group of companies sued their insurers in England, claiming the insurance policies allowed them to choose the court. The insurers disagreed. The court decided the policies actually only allowed England's court to hear the case if the local courts in the country where the policies were issued wouldn't hear it first. Since the local courts *would* hear the case, the English court case was dismissed.
Key Facts
- •Appeal concerning the interpretation of an "Applicable Law and Jurisdiction" clause in seventeen insurance policies.
- •Claimants (Al Mana Group entities) sought indemnities for business interruption losses due to the Covid-19 pandemic (approx. US$40 million).
- •Policies issued by defendants (insurance companies in UAE, Qatar, and Kuwait).
- •Disputed clause: "APPLICABLE LAW AND JURISDICTION: [1] In accordance with the jurisdiction, local laws and practices of the country in which the policy is issued. [2] Otherwise England and Wales UK Jurisdiction shall be applied, [3] Under liability jurisdiction will be extended to worldwide excluding USA and Canada."
- •Claimants argued the clause offered a choice of jurisdiction (local court or England & Wales).
- •Defendants argued the clause mandated the local court's jurisdiction, with England & Wales as a fallback only if the local court declined jurisdiction.
Legal Principles
Contract interpretation should consider how a reasonable person (ordinary policyholder) would understand the contract, not a pedantic lawyer.
Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd [2021] UKSC 1
Choice of foreign law is a powerful factor indicating mandatory choice of foreign jurisdiction.
Hin-Pro International Logistics Ltd v Compania Sud Americana de Vapores [2015] EWCA Civ 401; AIG Europe SA v John Wood Group Plc [2022] EWCA Civ 781
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
The court held that the clause provided for the exclusive jurisdiction of the local court, with English jurisdiction as a fallback only if the local court lacked or would not accept jurisdiction. The court found the claimants' interpretation, granting a free choice of forum, to be an unnatural reading of the clause.
English court has no jurisdiction.
Since the local courts would accept jurisdiction, the fallback provision for English jurisdiction did not apply.
Claimants' alternative argument (English jurisdiction unless local jurisdiction is mandatory under local law) rejected.
The court found no basis in the language of the clause for this alternative construction.
Similar Cases
Tyson International Company Limited v GIC Re, India, Corporate Member Limited
[2024] EWHC 236 (Comm)
Bellini (N/E) Ltd v Brit UW Limited
[2024] EWCA Civ 435
Hamilton Corporate Member Ltd & Ors v Afghan Global Insurance Limited & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1426 (Comm)
Sanjay Shah & Anor v Christopher Chipperton
[2024] EWHC 1696 (Comm)