The policy contained an express provision on jurisdiction which read:

The claimant contended that the provision gave free choice as to jurisdiction: either the local court or England and Wales. The insurer contended that the primary place of jurisdiction was that of the courts local to the place where the policy had been written; that England and Wales would only be appropriate if the local court did not have or would not accept jurisdiction. The judge at first instance had accepted that the claimant’s interpretation was the more likely interpretation of the policy wording. The insurer appealed.

The insurer contended that the opening wording was imperative in nature and that choice of law was a powerful factor in also determining jurisdiction.3 The claimant contended that the judge had been correct to treat the word “otherwise” as synonymous with “or”, that there was no wording to indicate that England and Wales would be an appropriate forum only if the local courts had declined jurisdiction and that to so conclude could give rise to disagreement and delay. Further, commercial common sense meant that the wording was to be construed to allow a single neutral place of jurisdiction.