UNDERWRITING MEMBERS OF LLOYD’S SYNDICATE 980 V SINCO SA

[2008] EWHC 1842 (Comm), Queen’s Bench Division, Commercial Court, Mr Justice Beatson, 29 July 2008

Insurance – Binding authority – Conflict of laws – Binding authority given to Greek brokers and containing exclusive arbitration clause – Proceedings commenced in England by underwriters but not served – Proceedings commenced by brokers in Greece – New claim for breach of jurisdiction clause added to original English action – Whether new claim should be stayed – Brussels Regulation, Council Regulation 44/2001, articles 27 and 30

Three Lloyd’s Syndicates granted binding authorities to the defendants, Greek brokers, in respect of motor insurance business, for the years 1999 to 2006. All of the binders were subject to English law and English exclusive jurisdiction. The Syndicates purported to terminate the binders, on 15 January 2007 issued a claim form in England alleging fraud, misrepresentation and misappropriation of premiums. On 11 April 2007, before being served with the English claim form, Sinco commenced proceedings against the Syndicates in Greece, seeking compensation and moral damages in tort and under statute. On 29 June 2007 the Syndicates amended their statement of claim by adding a claim for damages for breach of the exclusive jurisdiction clauses. Sinco applied to have the English proceedings stayed, on the ground that the Greek court was first seised of the question of the validity of the jurisdiction clauses so that the English proceedings as they related to the claim for damages for breach of the exclusion clauses should be stayed on the basis of the first seised rule in article 27 of the Brussels Regulation. Beatson J refused a stay. He ruled that the English and Greek actions did not involve the same cause of action within the meaning of article 27. If the proceedings were looked at as a whole, it was clear that they were different: the Greek action was for damages in respect of the binders, whereas the English action was for damages for breach of the exclusive jurisdiction clauses. The fact that the validity of the jurisdiction clauses was one of the issues in the Greek proceedings was not enough to trigger article 27. Beatson J further held that, had article 27 applied, a stay would have been granted: article 30 of the Brussels Regulation did not permit the Syndicates to treat the May 2007 amendment to the statement of claim as part of the original January 2007 claim (so as to make the English court first seised) even though under CPR 17 it had been possible to amend without the permission of the court a claim form which had not been served, with the amendment relating back to the original claim form.