Longer Reads

English Court grants anti-suit injunction to restrain New York proceedings

A review of the recent case of XL Insurance Co SE v Little.

2 minute read

Published 19 November 2019

Authors

Share

Key information

  • Specialisms
  • Dispute Resolution
  • Services
  • Banking & financial disputes

Background

English courts have a longstanding and well recognised jurisdiction to restrain foreign proceedings which are brought in violation of an agreement to settle disputes by arbitration in London.

In the recent case of XL Insurance Co SE v Little, the claimant (the ”XL Insurance”) asked the English High Court for a final anti-suit injunction to restrain Mr Little from pursuing proceedings that he had brought in the District Court of the Southern District of New York (the “New York Court”).

Mr Little, a former Barclays employee, had been accused by US authorities of manipulating foreign exchange currency benchmarks. In order to fund his defence against those allegations, Mr Little sought to draw on a directors and officers insurance policy issued by XL Insurance to the bank (“Policy”). However, XL Insurance denied that Mr Little was insured under that Policy and therefore declined to provide cover.

In December of 2018, Mr Little filed proceedings against XL Insurance in the New York Court, alleging breach of contract and seeking a declaration that there was coverage available under the Policy for his costs associated with the US regulatory action.

However, those proceedings were in conflict with an arbitration clause under the Policy, which specified that any dispute or difference had to be submitted to LCIA arbitration in London. XL Insurance therefore applied to the English court for an anti-suit injunction.

Decision

Mr Justice Popplewell granted the injunction, holding that if Mr Little were insured under the Policy, then he was bound by the dispute resolution clause to arbitrate his claim to coverage in London.

The relevant law was said to be uncontroversial. Where parties have entered into an agreement to arbitrate disputes in a particular forum, this gives rise to a negative obligation not to commence proceedings in any other forum in relation to matters which are within the scope of the arbitration agreement. The Court held that Mr Little could not found a claim in the New York Court based on rights said to arise out of the Policy without also being bound by its dispute resolution provisions.

Mr Justice Popplewell did not consider there to be any strong reasons against granting an injunction.   He noted that XL Insurance had made its application promptly and had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the New York Court. The fact that Mr Little resided in New York and owned no real property in the UK had no bearing on the High Court’s jurisdiction over him, which was plainly established by the English law contract from which he sought to derive a benefit.

It was argued that Mr Little should not be bound by the dispute resolution provision because he played no role in negotiating or purchasing the Policy. However, that argument was held to be misconceived as a matter of English law. After all, it was Mr Little who sought to assert rights under the Policy and those rights, if they existed, could only be exercised in accordance with the Policy’s contractual provisions.

It was also suggested that the dispute resolution clause should not apply to the “threshold question” of whether Mr Little was insured under the policy. Mr Justice Popplewell disagreed, ruling that the arbitration clause was wide enough to cover a dispute about whether Mr Little was insured. He summed the matter up as follows: “Mr Little says that he is an insured. XL Insurance disputes that that is so. If he is an insured then, as a matter of English law, he is bound by the terms of the policy, including the dispute resolution provision. If he is not an insured, then he has no claim in any event. He cannot be an insured who has a claim under the policy but who is not bound by the dispute resolution provision.”

Comment

The judgment serves as a useful reminder that English courts will not hesitate to restrain US proceedings if seen as necessary to protect a London arbitration agreement.

Message us on WhatsApp

Related latest updates
PREV NEXT

Related content

Arrow Back to Insights

Longer Reads

English Court grants anti-suit injunction to restrain New York proceedings

A review of the recent case of XL Insurance Co SE v Little.

Published 19 November 2019

Associated sectors / services

Authors

Background

English courts have a longstanding and well recognised jurisdiction to restrain foreign proceedings which are brought in violation of an agreement to settle disputes by arbitration in London.

In the recent case of XL Insurance Co SE v Little, the claimant (the ”XL Insurance”) asked the English High Court for a final anti-suit injunction to restrain Mr Little from pursuing proceedings that he had brought in the District Court of the Southern District of New York (the “New York Court”).

Mr Little, a former Barclays employee, had been accused by US authorities of manipulating foreign exchange currency benchmarks. In order to fund his defence against those allegations, Mr Little sought to draw on a directors and officers insurance policy issued by XL Insurance to the bank (“Policy”). However, XL Insurance denied that Mr Little was insured under that Policy and therefore declined to provide cover.

In December of 2018, Mr Little filed proceedings against XL Insurance in the New York Court, alleging breach of contract and seeking a declaration that there was coverage available under the Policy for his costs associated with the US regulatory action.

However, those proceedings were in conflict with an arbitration clause under the Policy, which specified that any dispute or difference had to be submitted to LCIA arbitration in London. XL Insurance therefore applied to the English court for an anti-suit injunction.

Decision

Mr Justice Popplewell granted the injunction, holding that if Mr Little were insured under the Policy, then he was bound by the dispute resolution clause to arbitrate his claim to coverage in London.

The relevant law was said to be uncontroversial. Where parties have entered into an agreement to arbitrate disputes in a particular forum, this gives rise to a negative obligation not to commence proceedings in any other forum in relation to matters which are within the scope of the arbitration agreement. The Court held that Mr Little could not found a claim in the New York Court based on rights said to arise out of the Policy without also being bound by its dispute resolution provisions.

Mr Justice Popplewell did not consider there to be any strong reasons against granting an injunction.   He noted that XL Insurance had made its application promptly and had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the New York Court. The fact that Mr Little resided in New York and owned no real property in the UK had no bearing on the High Court’s jurisdiction over him, which was plainly established by the English law contract from which he sought to derive a benefit.

It was argued that Mr Little should not be bound by the dispute resolution provision because he played no role in negotiating or purchasing the Policy. However, that argument was held to be misconceived as a matter of English law. After all, it was Mr Little who sought to assert rights under the Policy and those rights, if they existed, could only be exercised in accordance with the Policy’s contractual provisions.

It was also suggested that the dispute resolution clause should not apply to the “threshold question” of whether Mr Little was insured under the policy. Mr Justice Popplewell disagreed, ruling that the arbitration clause was wide enough to cover a dispute about whether Mr Little was insured. He summed the matter up as follows: “Mr Little says that he is an insured. XL Insurance disputes that that is so. If he is an insured then, as a matter of English law, he is bound by the terms of the policy, including the dispute resolution provision. If he is not an insured, then he has no claim in any event. He cannot be an insured who has a claim under the policy but who is not bound by the dispute resolution provision.”

Comment

The judgment serves as a useful reminder that English courts will not hesitate to restrain US proceedings if seen as necessary to protect a London arbitration agreement.

Associated sectors / services

Authors

Need some more information? Make an enquiry below.

    Subscribe

    Please add your details and your areas of interest below

    Specialist sectors:

    Legal services:

    Other information:

    Jurisdictions of interest to you (other than UK):

    Article contributors

    Enjoy reading our articles? why not subscribe to notifications so you’ll never miss one?

    Subscribe to our articles

    Message us on WhatsApp

    Please note that Collyer Bristow provides this service during office hours for general information and enquiries only and that no legal or other professional advice will be provided over the WhatsApp platform. Please also note that if you choose to use this platform your personal data is likely to be processed outside the UK and EEA, including in the US. Appropriate legal or other professional opinion should be taken before taking or omitting to take any action in respect of any specific problem. Collyer Bristow LLP accepts no liability for any loss or damage which may arise from reliance on information provided. All information will be deleted immediately upon completion of a conversation.

    I accept Close

    Close
    Scroll up
    ExpandNeed some help?Toggle

    Get in touch

    Get in touch using our form below.