In the matter of Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Plc and others v Rolls-Royce Plc [2010] EWHC 1869 (Comm), which arose from parallel proceedings being pursued in England and Florida, the Court made clear that English proceedings will not be stayed in such instances unless it is shown that the foreign court is clearly the most appropriate forum.
Following the technical failure of its ‘Mermaid Pod’ marine propulsion system, and the commencement of litigation in the Florida courts, Rolls-Royce made settlements in excess of $100m to several cruise ship operators. On notification of the claim by Rolls-Royce’s brokers, Marsh UK Ltd, the insurers indicated that they would not meet the claim, prompting Rolls-Royce to commence proceedings in the Southern District of Florida. Prior to service of the Florida proceedings, parallel proceedings were filed by the insurers in the English courts and served on Rolls-Royce at its UK registered office. The insurance policies were expressly subject to English law but did not contain an exclusive jurisdiction clause.
Rolls-Royce applied to the High Court for a stay of the English proceedings, an application which was ultimately refused. The Court recognised that proper service had been made in England and so it had jurisdiction. The burden was therefore on Rolls-Royce to prove that Florida was clearly the appropriate forum for the dispute. This was a burden which Rolls-Royce failed to discharge.
On considering the factual issues relevant to the dispute, the Court decided that England was the more appropriate forum. Whilst accepting that Rolls-Royce staff and legal advisers had accumulated knowledge and expertise on the matter in Florida, the Court characterised this as a dispute between an English insured and (predominantly) English insurers under policies whose governing law was English and which was placed in London. For this reason, the application for a stay was rejected.