i-law

Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly

AN AMELIORATIVE INTERPRETATION OF SULAMÉRICA?

Myron Phua*

Enka v Chubb
Ameliorative interpretations of one decision in another are not novel.1 The High Court’s recent judgment in Enka v Chubb 2 is a salient example. Amongst other points, Enka contains a reconceptualisation of the guidance in Sulamérica v Enesa 3 on how one identifies the proper law of an arbitration agreement contained in a contractual document which also contains a choice of law clause worded in language that could at least be interpreted as denoting a choice of law for the other contractual provisions. Whilst Moore-Bick LJ in Sulamérica 4 had counselled that a court should discern whether the party had made an “implied choice” of law for the arbitration agreement when it agreed on a general choice of law for the other contractual provisions (the “main contract”), Andrew Baker J in Enka 5 posited (obiter) that the better analysis was to determine whether that choice of law clause itself can be construed as encompassing the arbitration agreement.

204

The rest of this document is only available to i-law.com online subscribers.

If you are already a subscriber, click Log In button.

Copyright © 2024 Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited. Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited is registered in England and Wales with company number 13831625 and address 5th Floor, 10 St Bride Street, London, EC4A 4AD, United Kingdom. Lloyd's List Intelligence is a trading name of Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited.

Lloyd's is the registered trademark of the Society Incorporated by the Lloyd's Act 1871 by the name of Lloyd's.