UK: ReInsurance and Reinsurance - Weekly Update - 24 July 2012

Last Updated: 31 July 2012
Article by Nigel Brook

LA GÉNÉRALE DES CARRIÈRES ET DES MINES v FG HEMISPHERE

Privy Council decision on enforcing an award against a state-owned company

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2012/27.html

Clyde & Co (Simon Kemp, Julie Tripp, Henrietta Wells, Jerome Stedman and Amy Stafford) for the appellant

The respondent was assigned an arbitration award against the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It sought to enforce that award against the assets of the appellant, a state-owned corporation (those assets being located in Jersey). The appellant appealed against a finding that its assets could be equated with the assets of the state (relying on the English Court of Appeal's decision in Trendtex Trading v Central Bank of Nigeria [1977]). The Privy Council has now allowed that appeal, holding as follows:

  1. International law has developed since Trendtex. In particular, the United Kingdom has enacted the State Immunity Act 1978 (the provisions of which were extended to Jersey in 1985). This act gave effect to the European Convention on State Immunity which excluded from the scope of the State any distinct legal entity capable of suing or being sued. There should be full and appropriate recognition of the existence of separate juridical entities established by a state, particularly for trading purposes (and this principle applies as much to questions of liability and enforcement as it does to questions of immunity).
  2. Although an entity's constitution, control and functions remain relevant, there is a strong presumption that its separate corporate status should be respected "and that it and the State forming it should not have to bear each other's liabilities. It will in the Board's view take quite extreme circumstances to displace this presumption". The presumption will be displaced if the entity has, despite its juridical personality, "no effective separate existence".

There may, for example, be circumstances in which the State has so interfered with a state-owned entity that it would be appropriate to lift the corporate veil. However, "Merely because a State's conduct makes it appropriate to lift the corporate veil to enable a third party or creditor of a state-owned corporation to look to the State does not automatically entitle a creditor of the State to look to the state-owned corporation. Lifting the veil may mean that a corporation is treated as part of the State for some purposes, but not others".

On the facts of this case, there was no justification for "deriving from the instances of cases where [the appellant]'s assets were used for the State's benefit a conclusion that the two should for all purposes be assimilated".

GRAMSCI SHIPPING v RECOLETOS LTD & ORS

Jurisdiction and good arguable case/lifting the corporate veil

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2012/1887.html

Clyde & Co (Edward Mills-Webb and Chris Moxon) for claimants

The claimants alleged that two individuals (S and L) used certain companies (which were also defendants to the proceedings) as a device to divert profits. The English court held that the claimants were entitled to pierce the corporate veil and therefore S was bound by the jurisdiction clause in the agreement entered into by the companies. In related proceedings the court rejected S's jurisdictional challenge. L then challenged the jurisdiction of the court to hear the claim brought against him. Teare J has now held as follows:

  1. L argued that there was no "good arguable case" for establishing jurisdiction over him. The test of what constitutes a good arguable case was held in Canada Trust v Stolzenberg (No.2) [1998] to mean that one side has "a much better argument on the material available". The use of that test in all circumstances has been doubted in subsequent cases. In this case, Teare J held that it did not apply where, as here, "there is a stark dispute between opposing witnesses. To seek to judge who has the better of the argument on such evidence risks a pre-trial at the interlocutory stage. In order to avoid doing so it is preferable, in my judgment, to concentrate on whether factors exist which allow the court to take jurisdiction. That will oblige the court to consider whether the evidence relied upon by the claimant has sufficient strength to allow the court take jurisdiction". The evidence in this case allowed the court to take jurisdiction even though there was conflicting evidence.
  2. However, following the recent Court of Appeal decision in VTB Capital v Nutritek (see Weekly Update 22/12), Teare J said he was bound to find that L should not be treated as if he was a party to the jurisdiction clause in the agreement.

VAVA & ORS v AASA LTD

Whether South African company was "domiciled" in England/meaning of "central administration" and "principal place of business"

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/1969.html

The claimants brought actions for damages for personal injuries against AASA, a company incorporated in South Africa. When AASA challenged the English court's jurisdiction, the claimants sought specific disclosure and/or further information from AASA to help them deal with the jurisdictional challenge. Accordingly, the claimants had to show that, at this stage, they had a good arguable case on jurisdiction.

It was common ground that the claimants can sue AASA in England only if it is domiciled here. Article 60 of Regulation 44/2001 provides that a company is domiciled at the place where it has either its (a) statutory seat (ie registered office or place of incorporation); or (b) central administration; or (c) principal place of business.

The claimants sought to rely on (b) and/or (c). There is no decided ECJ case on the meaning of "central administration". However, Silber J held that European academic opinion supported the view that it is where decisions are made and where "the entrepreneurial management takes place". The "principal place of business" can be somewhere different and it is at least strongly arguable that it is where "the most important centre of the economic, industrial or commercial activity of a company is situated and where most of its employees and business assets are deployed".

On the facts of the case, although AASA was a separate company from its UK parent company, the claimants had at least an arguable case that London, as the headquarters of the parent company, was the place where management entrepreneurial decisions relating to AASA's business were taken.

The judge went on to order specific disclosure of certain documents, rather than making an order under Part 18 for the provision of further information. He held that this was a better way of providing information because the disclosed documents would be contemporaneous and not "self-serving", and could be provided more speedily and economically than meeting a request for further information under Part 18.

COMMENT: This case demonstrates that, where a non-EU company is wholly owned by a EU parent company which "influences" (rather than determines) the subsidiary's decisions (in this case, AASA had "regard to the policy and strategy of [its UK parent company] in making its own decision"), that can be enough to satisfy the good arguable case test that the non-EU company is "domiciled" in the EU for the purposes of Regulation 44/2001.

SAPPORO BREWERIES v LUPOFRES

Choice of law arguments

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/2013.html

The English defendant company agreed to buy certain goods from the Japanese claimant company. The written agreements between the parties did not contain an express choice of law clause. The defendant sought to argue that there had been an implied choice of English law and based its argument on the following:

  1. The purchase orders had been written in English. Bean J held that this was not a significant factor. In this case, English had been used because the defendant's employees did not speak Japanese.
  2. Terms familiar in English law (such as "cif UK port") were used. Again, this was not significant - the terms in question were universal in international maritime trade.
  3. The parties had "ceremoniously" shaken hands in England. The judge rejected that as a factor too- "it takes more than a handshake to constitute a choice of English law by both parties".

On the facts, the judge concluded that the presumption under Article 4(2) of the Rome Convention applied: "It shall be presumed that the contract is most closely connected with the country where the party who is to effect the performance which is characteristic of the contract has...its central administration". Since the seller was based in Japan, Japanese law applied. Nor was the position any different in relation to the tortious counterclaims (for intimidation or economic duress) being made by the English defendant. Unlike a tortious claim for negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation (where the tort is committed where the misstatements are received or relied upon), it was where the most significant elements of the tort take place which was relevant here and, on the facts, that was Japan - hence Japanese law applied.

SWIFT v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE

Claimant alleges Fatal Accidents Act breaches her ECHR rights

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/2000.html

Section 1(3)(b) of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 provides that a claim for loss of financial dependency may only be made by the survivor of a couple who had been living "as husband and wife" where there has been cohabitation for 2 years or more prior to the date of death. Spouses or civil partners may make a claim without any limitation of time.

The claimant, who had been living with the deceased for six months prior to his death, claimed that section 1(3)(b) breached her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (in particular, article 8 which provides the right to respect for private and family life).

Eady J rejected her claim. It was not possible to conclude that the purpose of section 1(3)(b) was to improve, promote or benefit ongoing family or private life. It was simply intended to provide certain categories of persons with a right to claim for losses that can be measured in financial terms. Whilst the judge accepted that many will feel the law is currently in an unsatisfactory state, he said that he had "little doubt that the law will at some point be changed so as to help others in a similar plight, but that will depend upon the allocation of legislative time".

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Nigel Brook
 
In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.