Jurisdiction Dispute Under Articles 27 And 30 Of EU Regulation 44/2001: “Syndicate 980 V Sinco S.A.” [2008] EWHC 1842 (Comm.)

In this case, the claimants were three Lloyd's

Syndicates ("Syndicates") for various years of

account between 1999 and 2006. The defendant was a Greek motor

insurance broker ("Sinco") with authority to bind

Greek motor insurances on behalf of the Syndicates. The

defendant's authority to do this derived from binding

authority agreements known as "Binders", which all

contained materially identical provisions including a provision

for English law to apply to the agreements and an exclusive

jurisdiction clause in favour of the English courts.

In November 2006, the Syndicates sought to terminate the

2006 Binder and subsequently issued proceedings against Sinco

in the English Commercial Court in January 2007. The basis of

the claim was that Sinco fraudulently backdated policy

cancellations and generated a fictional return of premium which

it retained for its own account, further that it did not

account to the Syndicates for premium. Sinco was also alleged

to have misrepresented the level of claims under the early

Binders, thereby inducing the Syndicates to enter into Binders

for subsequent years, when they would not otherwise have done

so.

Notwithstanding that the claim form was issued in January

2007, the claimants did not serve it on Sinco nor inform Sinco

of the issue of proceedings. Subsequently in April 2007, Sinco

issued proceedings in Greece against the Syndicates making

claims that were effectively claims in tort and under Greek

statute. As a result, the Syndicates amended the claim form in

June 2007 to state that the English court had jurisdiction

pursuant to EC Regulation 44/2001. They also added a claim for

damages in respect of Sinco's alleged breach of the

exclusive jurisdiction clause by commencing proceedings in

Greece and proceeded to serve the claim form on Sinco.

Sinco sought to stay the English proceedings in respect of

the added head of claim relating to breach of the jurisdiction

clause, pending the determination of the Greek court of its

jurisdiction (the Greek hearing had been delayed due to a court

strike). They argued that the claims brought in Greece were not

covered by the jurisdiction clauses in the Binders, which

covered contractual claims only.

Article 30: court first seised of dispute

Firstly, the Commercial Court considered the effect of

Article 30 of the Regulation, which deems a court to be seised

of an action inter alia "when the document instituting the

proceedings or an equivalent document is lodged with the...