Justice Bright in the London High Court has ruled that a claim against the London P&I Club over the sinking of the ‘X Press Pearl’ off the coast of Sri Lanka must be heard in the UK.
London club successfully argued that the case brought by cargo interests in Sri Lanka should be halted and arbitration brought to London.
The defendants, (1) Trico Maritime (Pvt) Ltd (2) Ms L.D.P. Thisari Senanayake (3) Mr S.D.K Prasanna (4) T.M.J.N.M. Tennakoon and (5) Ms T.N. Aluthwaththa did not appear and were not represented.
Simon Rainey KC, Natalie Moore, Joseph Gourgey (instructed by Campbell Johnston Clark) appeared for the Claimants.
The judgment followed the trial of this action, which was held on April 12th.
The proceedings arose out of the sinking of container ship X-Press Pearl off Sri Lanka on June 2nd 2021, for which London Club was the P&I insurer.
The First Defendant is a Sri Lankan company. The Second to Fifth Defendants are Sri Lankan citizens. All are parties who assert an interest in some of the cargo that was lost when the Vessel sank.
The proceedings arose out of legal proceedings commenced by each of the Cargo Claimants in Sri Lanka, in connection with their respective cargo claims. In the Sri Lankan proceedings, the First Defendant is represented by KP Law Associates, and the other Cargo Claimants are represented by Nirupama Rajapaksha.
In response London Club commenced an arbitration claim in this jurisdiction, seeking a final antisuit injunction and declaratory relief from this court, in support (it was said) of its right to be sued only by a claim referred to arbitration in London, subject to the terms of the Insurance Contract.
Justice Bright said that, after many (failed) attempts at communication with the defendants, “I can only conclude that the Cargo Claimants made a deliberate decision not to engage with these proceedings or take part in the trial”.
After considering a multitude of issues, Justice Bright ruled that
“the claims being asserted in Sri Lanka against the Club are not independent of the Insurance Contract. They are claims that are founded on the existence of the Insurance Contract pursuant to which the Club is the Vessel’s P&I insurer. Accordingly, whether under the ‘benefit and burden’ basis or on the basis that the obligation to arbitrate is a legal incident of the /obligations under the Insurance Contract, the Cargo Claimants are bound by the agreement to arbitrate in Rule 43.2 of the Club Rules (incorporated into the Insurance Contract by the Certificate of Entry). 30. It follows that the Club is entitled to be sued only by way of a reference to arbitration in London; and that the Club is entitled to an antisuit injunction, unless there is a good reason why it should not be granted”.
London club successfully argued that the case brought by cargo interests in Sri Lanka should be halted and arbitration brought to London.
The defendants, (1) Trico Maritime (Pvt) Ltd (2) Ms L.D.P. Thisari Senanayake (3) Mr S.D.K Prasanna (4) T.M.J.N.M. Tennakoon and (5) Ms T.N. Aluthwaththa did not appear and were not represented.
Simon Rainey KC, Natalie Moore, Joseph Gourgey (instructed by Campbell Johnston Clark) appeared for the Claimants.
The judgment followed the trial of this action, which was held on April 12th.
The proceedings arose out of the sinking of container ship X-Press Pearl off Sri Lanka on June 2nd 2021, for which London Club was the P&I insurer.
The First Defendant is a Sri Lankan company. The Second to Fifth Defendants are Sri Lankan citizens. All are parties who assert an interest in some of the cargo that was lost when the Vessel sank.
The proceedings arose out of legal proceedings commenced by each of the Cargo Claimants in Sri Lanka, in connection with their respective cargo claims. In the Sri Lankan proceedings, the First Defendant is represented by KP Law Associates, and the other Cargo Claimants are represented by Nirupama Rajapaksha.
In response London Club commenced an arbitration claim in this jurisdiction, seeking a final antisuit injunction and declaratory relief from this court, in support (it was said) of its right to be sued only by a claim referred to arbitration in London, subject to the terms of the Insurance Contract.
