RED SEA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD V BOUYGUES SA AND OTHERS

(1995) 4 Re LR 231

Judicial Committee of the Privy Council

Before Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Woolf, Lord Lloyd of Berwick and Lord Nolan

Conflict of laws - Tort - Double actionability - Exceptions to general rule - Alleged tort committed in foreign country - Insurer incorporated in Hong Kong with head office in Saudi Arabia - Insurer sued in Hong Kong by contractors seeking to recover in respect of building project in Saudi Arabia - Insurer seeking to counterclaim on basis of alleged tort actionable in Saudi Arabia but not actionable in Hong Kong - Counterclaim struck out by order of Hong Kong High Court - Order set aside by Court of Appeal of Hong Kong - Order of Court of Appeal that insurer could not counterclaim in negligence relying solely on law of Saudi Arabia as lex loci delicti - Whether appeal to Judicial Committee misconceived - Whether proposed amendment raised new claim which was time barred under Limitation Ordinance - Whether insurer could rely purely on Saudi Arabian law (lex loci delicti) to establish direct liability in tort when Hong Kong law (lex fori) did not recognise such liability - Whether rule 203(1)(b) and 203(2) stated in Dicey and Morris (12th edition) was correct statement of law.