header-logo header-logo

13 December 2013
Issue: 7588 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Anti-suit injunction

Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania v Equitas Insurance Ltd [2013] EWHC 3713 (Comm), [2013] All ER (D) 18 (Dec)

The claimant brought an action in England claiming to be indemnified by the defendant, pursuant to three contracts of reinsurance. After several months of negotiations in respect of the English claims, it launched a claim in New York, allegedly without informing the defendant. The defendant, having become aware of the New York claim, applied for an anti-suit injunction. The claimant applied for a stay of the English proceedings pending the US court’s determination of Equitas Insurance Ltd’s motions for a stay. The court ruled that it was settled law that the English court should favour its own conflict of law rules and, under those rules, it was overwhelmingly likely that English law governed the formation and meaning and effect of the reinsurance contracts. It was settled law that where a claimant had brought a claim against the same defendants for essentially the same relief arising out of the same facts in two jurisdictions, then, absent special

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Firm strengthens global fund finance practice with London partner hire.

DWF—Stephen Webb

DWF—Stephen Webb

Partner and head of national planning team appointed

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

Corporate team expands in Birmingham with partner hire

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll