Court of Appeal
Published March 27, 2009
Youell and Others v La Réunion Aeriènne

The mere fact that a claim was the subject of an arbitration agreement did not deprive a court, which could otherwise determine the substance of the claim, of its jurisdiction under Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, the Brussels I Convention.

The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Rix, Lord Justice Jacob and Lord Justice Lawrence Collins) so held on March 11, 2009, dismissing an appeal from the rejection by Mr Justice Tomlinson ([2008] EWHC 2493 (Comm)) of a challenge to the jurisdiction of the English courts by the defendants, La Réunion Aeriènne, representing the French insurance market, in an action by the claimants, J.R.L.

Youell and 13 other members of the English insurance market, for a declaration of nonliability related to an insurance claim brought against Turbomeca, an aeronautical engineering company.

LORD JUSTICE LAWRENCE COLLINS said the French market asserted that it was relying on a contract containing a French arbitration clause which was covered by the exclusion in article 1(2)(d) of the Brussels I Convention.

If the claim was subject to an arbitration agreement, the defendants’ remedy was to seek a stay. It was the nature of the claim which was critical.

On the facts, the claim was not covered by the arbitration agreement, and the mere fact that the claims were mirror images of claims which were being asserted by the French market in a French arbitration did not make them claims to which the Convention exclusion applied.

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure