Dispute Over Forum Selection Clauses in Reinsurance Contracts: Tyson International v Partner Reinsuranceève - Key Legal Principles Explained

Citation: [2023] EWHC 3243 (Comm)
Judgment on


The case of Tyson International Company Limited v Partner Reinsurance Europe SE involves a legal dispute over the applicable law and forum selected for resolving a reinsurance contract controversy. The case provides an illuminating illustration of several key legal principles in the realm of contract law, particularly anti-suit injunctions (ASI), stays in favor of arbitration, and the interplay between separate but overlapping contracts concerning the same legal relationship.

Key Facts

Tyson International Company Limited (“C”) sought relief against Partner Reinsurance Europe SE (“D”) in the English High Court to enforce an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a reinsurance contract, while D sought a stay of the proceedings on the grounds that a New York arbitration clause in a later agreement should prevail. The competing clauses emerged from two separate contracts—the first known as the Market Reform Contract (MRC) and the second as the Market Uniform Reinsurance Agreement (MURA)—executed eight days apart, containing contradictory dispute resolution provisions.

The case called into question several significant legal principles:

  1. Anti-suit injunctions (ASIs) and mandatory arbitration stays: An ASI is an equitable remedy used to prevent a party from initiating or continuing litigation in a foreign jurisdiction contrary to an agreement. Meanwhile, a mandatory stay for arbitration enforces a party’s commitment to arbitrate rather than litigate disputes, as per section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
  2. Jurisdiction and contractual sovereignty: Central to the case was the issue of whether the New York arbitration clause in the MURA replaced or superseded the English jurisdiction clause in the earlier MRC, with each party bearing the burden to demonstrate their preferred forum selection clause should prevail.
  3. Entire Agreement and Superseding Clauses: The court explored the contractual doctrine of “entire agreement,” which was invoked to argue that the MURA supersedes the MRC, thereby establishing New York law and arbitration as the governing dispute resolution mechanisms.
  4. Threshold jurisdictional contests: The court is not required to determine the contractual position finally but must consider if a contract variation has occurred and if the forum selection clause has been replaced.


Justice Houseman concluded for the following:

  • The New York arbitration agreement in MURA replaced the jurisdiction clause in the MRC. The latter document was described as the parties’ final word on forum selection, which necessitated a stay of court proceedings in favor of New York arbitration under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996.
  • An ASI by C to stop D’s pursuit of arbitration in New York was not warranted as the English court found no jurisdictional basis for such relief.
  • Any delay in seeking ASI relief can potentially bar its grant, irrespective of whether the first-seised court or arbitration proceedings are materially advanced.
  • Permission to appeal was considered appropriate by the judge, recognizing the novelty and the absence of authoritative precedent on aspects of the case.


The High Court’s ruling is a clear testament to the paramountcy of contractual sovereignty; the later agreement’s express terms and the surrounding circumstances objectively demonstrated the parties’ intent to depart from the originally agreed English law and jurisdiction in favor of New York law and arbitration. This case reiterates the significance of immediate action upon the suspected breach of jurisdictional rights and showcases the intricacies of navigating overlapping contractual relationships. The judgment also presents avenues for future jurisprudential exploration, particularly on the application of anti-suit injunctions in private arbitration contexts.

Related Summaries