Standard Steamship Owners' Protection and Indemnity Association (Bermuda) Ltd. v GIE Vision Bail & Ors

A Joint Entrant accepted under mutual protection and indemnity rules may be bound by the rules, including an English jurisdiction clause, even if it is not also designated a Member. For the purposes of Article 23 of the Jurisdiction Regulation, consensus may be established through an agent with actual or ostensible authority. Written exchanges referring to certificates and incorporated rules may satisfy the formal requirements. Maritime liability and financial-loss risks connected with the use or operation of ships fall within the insurance exceptions permitting jurisdiction agreements. The court must distinguish between cover actually authorised and cover merely appearing in later application forms or certificates.

The Club sought premiums and calls from LDFS, a company included in Festival Group ship entries as a Joint Entrant. LDFS, domiciled in Cyprus, challenged service and the English court’s jurisdiction under the Jurisdiction Regulation.

The principal issues were whether the Club Rules made LDFS subject to Rule 32.1, whether the requirements of Articles 23 and 12–14 were met, and whether the evidence established any agreement or authority concerning Defence cover. LDFS also conceded the issue concerning the 2001/2002 entries.

1. Construction of the Club Rules. A Joint Entrant joins in the entry of the ship and is a person whose entry has been accepted under the Rules. Under Rules 4.2 and 4.4, it is bound by the Rules as if it were a Member, notwithstanding the distinction between Members, Joint Entrants and Co-assureds. Rule 32.1 therefore applied to LDFS.
2. Article 23. The Club had a good arguable case that Ferrari, acting for Festival and LDFS, and Charles Taylor, acting for the Club, agreed in writing that LDFS would be included as a Joint Entrant on the Festival P & I cover. The exchanges of 8 and 9 May 2002 referred to certificates and endorsements incorporating the Club Rules and thus evidenced agreement to the jurisdiction clause.
3. Article 23 does not require the principal personally to negotiate the jurisdiction clause. If an agent has actual or ostensible authority to conclude the contract, the agent’s consensus binds the principal. The agency question is governed by applicable national law and is not excluded by Trasporti Castelletti v Hugo Trumpy SpA.
4. The agreement also fell within Article 23.1(b) and (c). The relevant form of agreement accorded with established dealings and with a usage in international maritime insurance. The cover obtained was maritime cover involving liabilities and financial losses connected with the use or operation of ships, within Articles 13 and 14.
5. The application concerning P & I cover therefore failed. The Defence cover challenge succeeded because the contemporaneous exchanges concerned P & I cover, and there was no sufficient evidence of actual or ostensible authority to obtain Defence cover for LDFS. The application also succeeded in respect of the conceded 2001/2002 entries. Costs were reserved pending submissions.