Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Plc & Ors v Rolls-Royce Plc (Rev 1)

A stay for forum non conveniens is granted only where another available court has competent jurisdiction and is clearly or distinctly the more appropriate forum, having regard to the interests of all parties and the ends of justice. In an insurance dispute, substantial weight may attach to the policy’s governing law, the London insurance-market context and the location of the parties. Foreign factual connections and lawyers’ accumulated knowledge in related litigation may be relevant, but are not necessarily decisive where the insurance issues differ from the underlying liability claims. The timing of parallel proceedings is not, by itself, material where proceedings in both jurisdictions were begun at about the same time.

Rolls-Royce sought a stay of three English Commercial Court claims brought by its insurers. The claims concerned indemnity under insurance policies covering liabilities arising from failures in Mermaid Pods installed on cruise ships. Rolls-Royce had brought related declaratory proceedings in Florida concerning the same insurance cover and argued that Florida was the more appropriate forum.

The insurers relied on the English parties’ connections, the policies’ English governing law and the London market context. They also argued that the English court was required to exercise jurisdiction under Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, relying on Owusu v Jackson [2005] QB 801. The central issue was whether Florida was clearly the appropriate and available forum for the insurance dispute.

1. Application refused. Rolls-Royce did not establish that Florida was the clearly or distinctly more appropriate forum. The English proceedings therefore remained on foot. The court did not decide the Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 issue.
2. The applicable approach was that in Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460. A stay requires another available forum with competent jurisdiction which is more suitable for the parties and the ends of justice, and the defendant must show that it is clearly or distinctly more appropriate.
3. The Florida proceedings concerning the underlying Mermaid Pod liability claims overlapped with, but were not the same as, the insurance dispute. The insurance claims were brought by an English insured against predominantly English insurers under policies governed by English law and placed through London brokers. Those matters carried significant weight in favour of England. The worldwide location of the technical and factual evidence, and the Florida location of some underlying claims, did not outweigh them.
4. The accumulated knowledge of Rolls-Royce’s Florida lawyers was a relevant Cambridgeshire factor. Its weight depended on the extent of overlap between the related proceedings and the insurance claim. Here the factor was not decisive.
5. Witness considerations were broadly neutral. Evidence was likely to come from several jurisdictions, while documents could be copied as required. The fact that the Florida proceedings were filed first did not assist Rolls-Royce: the proceedings were begun at about the same time and the timing was accidental.