This litigation is the successor to the limitation action dispute during which the cargo interests were able to establish that the vessel was scuttled at the instigation of the owner of the vessel, and so defeated the normal limits on compensation.2 In the present action, the hull underwriters of the vessel sought recovery of the insurance proceeds paid to the owners and their bank under their Settlement Agreement. The hull underwriters claimed damages for fraudulent misrepresentation and also restitution of the sum paid. The proceedings were served on the bank in the Netherlands. The bank argued that, under the Brussels Regulation Recast,3 it could be sued only in the place of its domicile, the Netherlands. The hull underwriters maintained that the English court had jurisdiction for three reasons: (i) the bank was bound by the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the Settlement Agreement; (ii) the bank was bound by the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the policy; and (iii) the matters brought against the bank were matters which related to tort, delict or quasi delict and the harmful event occurred in England so as to confer jurisdiction under the Brussels Regulation Recast, Art.7(2).