Amlin Corporate Member Ltd v Oriental Assurance Corp (2012)1 Court of Appeal, 17 October 2012

The Court of Appeal upheld a first instance decision refusing a stay of proceedings brought by the reinsurers against the reinsured, despite Philippine proceedings pending between the reinsured and the insured. The ruling determined that where, under the reinsurance contract, the reinsurers were bound to follow the settlements of the reinsured, there was no general exception to the normal position that a stay of proceedings could only be granted in rare and compelling circumstances2.

A shipping catastrophe off the coast of the Philippines in June 2008, in which a vessel (the "Princess of the Stars") sailed through and was lost in a typhoon, led to the loss of over 500 lives and the vessel's cargo. In numerous proceedings, cargo owners brought claims against the shipowner and Oriental Assurance Corp ("Oriental"), the Philippine cargo liability insurer.

The policy between Oriental and the insured contained a Typhoon Warranty that the vessel would not set sail whilst a typhoon warning had been issued at its docked port or if the vessel's route might come within the path of the typhoon. The insurers were reinsured by Amlin and others (the "reinsurers"). The reinsurance contract incorporated the conditions of the original policy including, in effectively the same terms, the Typhoon Warranty. Further, the reinsurance contract contained an English law and jurisdiction clause, and a follow the settlements clause.

The reinsurers issued English proceedings seeking a declaration that they were not liable to indemnify Oriental on the basis that the Typhoon Warranty had been breached. Oriental's application to stay the English proceedings was dismissed on 17 February 2012 by Andrew Smith J. Oriental appealed this decision.

Oriental argued on appeal that the normal position under reinsurance contracts (or, at the very least, in situations where the reinsurers were bound to follow the settlements of the reinsured) was that the reinsurers should wait for the reinsured to settle their claim before the reinsurers could determine their liability. This argument was rejected because such an exception would go against the normal position that a stay of proceedings must only be granted in rare and compelling circumstances.

Oriental further argued that there did in fact exist such rare and compelling circumstances to warrant a stay of the English proceedings, on several grounds including: (a) that there was a risk of inconsistency between the English and Philippine courts; (b) that Oriental would be placed in an inherently unfair position by being forced to argue in the English proceedings the precise opposite of its main case in the Philippine proceedings (i.e. that the Typhoon Warranty had not been breached); and (c) that its case in the Philippine courts could potentially be prejudiced by a ruling in the English courts that there had been no breach of the Typhoon Warranty.

Oriental's arguments were rejected. The Court of Appeal held that Andrew Smith J was mindful of the risk of inconsistent judgments and was well within his discretion to decide that such risk was relatively modest. Further, Andrew Smith J was found to be right to take into account the delayed proceedings in the Philippines (estimated to be potentially delayed by up to 10 years). While the Court of Appeal judges did sympathise with Oriental's predicament, they made clear that the decision by Andrew Smith J was correct and that "[a] conclusion does not have to be reached with enthusiasm in order to be right"3.

Footnotes

1 [2012] EWCA Civ 1341
2 This normal position is provided in the case of Reichhold v Goldman Sachs [1999] 2 Lloyd's Reports 567 (upheld on appeal by the Court of Appeal at [2000] 1 WLR 173)
3 Comments of Lord Justice Tomlinson at paragraph 34.

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.