Bristow Helicopters Ltd & Anor v Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Incorporated In & Under Laws of Delaware USA) & Ors

A claim for a negative declaration is assessed by its substance and practical effect, rather than its form. Where it serves a useful and juridically sound purpose, the ordinary Spiliada principles apply, including the burden on an applicant to show that another available forum is clearly or distinctly more appropriate. The possibility of higher damages abroad is not a proper basis for a stay. In a cross-border tort causing death in England, the applicable law remains English law where the statutory connecting factors point to England. The court may use declaratory relief to resolve related claims at one trial and to fix the timing and venue of transnational litigation.

The claim arose from the loss of a helicopter in British territorial waters, causing the deaths of its crew and passengers. The helicopter was operated by the claimants, and claims concerning the design, repair and certification of a rotor blade were brought against several defendants.

The representatives of the deceased crew and their dependants applied for stays or other relief in respect of the claimants’ declarations and a Part 20 claim. They intended to pursue damages claims against Sikorsky in Connecticut and argued that the English proceedings would prejudice that choice. The central issues were whether the declaratory claims should be entertained and whether England or the United States was the more appropriate forum.

1. Applications dismissed. The representatives of the deceased crew and their dependants failed to establish any basis for staying the English proceedings, setting aside the Part 20 claim, or refusing the declaratory relief.
2. A negative declaration is not treated differently merely because of its form. Its propriety depends on its substance and effect. Declaratory relief may properly be used where a party is temporising and the relief will ensure that related claims are determined at one trial. It may also legitimately fix the timing and venue of litigation in a potential transnational dispute. This approach was explained in Messier-Dowty Ltd v Sabena SA [2000] 1 WLR 2040, which was distinguished on its facts.
3. The ordinary forum non conveniens principles in Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd [1987] 1 AC 460 applied. The burden was not diluted or transferred merely because the claims were for negative declarations. The applicants had to show that another available forum was clearly or distinctly more appropriate.
4. England was plainly the more appropriate forum. The accident occurred in or over English territory, the applicants and claimants were connected with England, the principal evidence and helicopter records were here, the trial was advanced, and the applicable law was English law. The possibility of obtaining higher damages in Connecticut was not a legitimate basis for selecting that forum, consistently with Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd [1987] 1 AC 460 and Lubbe v Cape Plc [2000] 1 WLR 1545.
5. The applicable law was not displaced by the fact that some work on the rotor blade occurred in Connecticut. The relevant rule in section 11 of the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995, including section 11(2), pointed to English law.
6. There was no reason to defer the decision until the Connecticut court determined jurisdiction. Such a course would create unnecessary expense and postpone proceedings begun in England as of right.