General Star International Indemnity Ltd. v Stirling Cooke Brown Reinsurance Brokers Ltd & Anor

Where English proceedings between parties subject to the English jurisdiction are issued first, the English court should ordinarily determine whether England is the proper forum. Relevant factors include the parties’ residence, the place of contracting and alleged wrongdoing, the governing law, the location of witnesses and documents, and the presence of parties who can conveniently be sued only in England. Familiarity with related foreign proceedings does not, without more, outweigh those factors. An anti-suit injunction additionally requires the foreign proceedings to be vexatious and oppressive or unconscionable. The remedy is exceptional and must be granted with caution and due regard to comity, but parallel proceedings may justify relief where the foreign proceedings seek to displace or restrain proceedings properly brought in England.

General Star International Indemnity Ltd brought proceedings in England against Stirling Cooke Brown Reinsurance Brokers Ltd and Richards Butler concerning alleged duties and liabilities arising from the broking and legal advice connected with film-finance reinsurance. Related proceedings had been tried in New York between Axa, Chase and Stirling Cooke Brown, but General Star was not a party.

After General Star issued its English claim, Stirling Cooke Brown commenced proceedings in New York seeking declarations and an injunction restraining General Star from pursuing the English claim. Stirling Cooke Brown applied for a stay so that the New York court could determine the forum issue. General Star sought a declaration that England was the appropriate forum and an anti-suit injunction. The central issues were which court should determine forum and whether England was the natural forum for the claims.

1. England was the proper court to determine the forum issue. The English proceedings had been issued first, all parties were English and subject to the court’s jurisdiction, and the existence and incidence of the alleged causes of action were governed by English law. There was no exceptional circumstance justifying allowing the New York court to determine whether the English court was the appropriate forum.
2. Applying the principles in Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460, England was plainly the natural forum. The material factors were that the parties resided and carried on business in England; the policies were broked and entered into there; the alleged negligence and representations occurred there; English law governed the duty issues; the witnesses and relevant documents were in England; and the claim concerning Richards Butler was properly capable of being determined only in England as a single forum.
3. The New York proceedings did not materially alter that conclusion. The New York judge’s familiarity with related litigation was insufficient by itself. The claims concerned General Star’s own relationship with Stirling Cooke Brown, different facts and, on the relevant issues, different governing law. The New York proceedings had not determined General Star’s claims.
4. Under Airbus Industrie v Patel [1999] 1 AC 119, an anti-suit injunction required the foreign proceedings to be vexatious and oppressive or unconscionable. The court had to act cautiously and with due regard to comity, and such relief required exceptional circumstances.
5. Those requirements were satisfied. Stirling Cooke Brown had commenced the New York proceedings after the English claim had begun, seeking to divert the determination of forum to New York and to restrain an English claimant from pursuing proceedings in the natural forum. Continuing the parallel proceedings would be oppressive. England was declared the natural forum and the anti-suit injunction was granted. Costs and ancillary matters were reserved.