Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
MONETARY REMEDIES FOR WRONGFUL FOREIGN PROCEEDINGS
James Ruddell*
The Alexandros T (No 2)
In Starlight Shipping Co v Allianz Marine & Aviation Versicherungs AG (The Alexandros T),1 the Supreme Court held that the English court could hear claims for declarations, damages and indemnities in response to Greek proceedings filed in breach of settlement and jurisdiction agreements. This note concerns its sequel, a decision of the Court of Appeal that determined the substantive issues involved.2 The court came down firmly in favour of the victim of the wrongful foreign proceedings. In doing so, it clarified the applicability of the Fiona Trust3
principles of construction and confirmed the availability of damages/indemnities where agreements not to sue (or not to sue in a foreign court) are breached in another Member State.
Background
The facts of the dispute have been discussed previously in this Quarterly4
and are no doubt familiar to many. Nevertheless, a brief recap may be of assistance. In May 2006, the Alexandros T sank and became a total loss off the coast of Port Elizabeth. A claim was made by the Starlight Shipping Company (“the owners”) against London insurers (“the insurers”)5 under policies governed by English law and subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English court. Liability was disputed and proceedings issued in England by the owners in August 2006. The proceedings were subsequently settled and stayed by way of Tomlin order.
However, in May 2011, the owners and various affiliates issued proceedings in Greece against the insurers (as well as the insurers’ officers, employees and solicitors6). The owners alleged breaches of the Greek Civil and Criminal Code in the insurers’ handling of the insurance claim and the subsequent dispute. They sought compensation for loss of hire and loss of opportunity (US$150m) and for moral damage (US$1m).7
1. Starlight Shipping Co v Allianz Marine & Aviation Versicherungs AG (The Alexandros T) [2013] UKSC 70; [2014] Bus LR 873; [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 223.
2. Starlight Shipping Co v Allianz Marine & Aviation Versicherungs AG (The Alexandros T) (No 2) [2014] EWCA Civ 1010; [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 544.
3. Fiona Trust & Holding Corp v Privalov [2007] UKHL 40; [2007] Bus LR 1719; [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 254.
4. Yvonne Baatz, “The effectiveness of settlement agreements and English jurisdiction agreements” [2014] LMCLQ 159.
5. The insurer defendants were split into the Company Market Insurers (“CMI”) and the Lloyd’s Market Insurers (“LMI”). There were slight differences in the policies and settlement agreements, none of which is relevant for present purposes.
6. After the Court of Appeal decision which is the subject of this note, Flaux J found that relief was also available to these third parties: see Starlight Shipping Co v Alliance Marine and Aviation Versicherungs AG (The Alexandros T) (No 3) [2014] EWHC 3068 (Comm); [2014] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 579.
7. The owners tried to make similar claims in the original 2006 English proceedings. The proposed amendment was rejected by Tomlinson J on the basis of Sprung v Royal Insurance UK Ltd
[1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep IR 111 (CA).
10