Empyrean Protocol

Empyrean Intelligence Console

← Back to briefs

Berytus Insurance & Reinsurance Company SAL v Golden Adventure Shipping SA [2025] EWHC 664 (Comm) (10 March 2025)

Source: Open mirrored case · Original bailii.org

Sanctions — Geo ✓

Executive Summary

  • The case concerns Berytus Insurance & Reinsurance Company SAL (Lebanese insurer) seeking a declaration that it is not liable to indemnify Golden Adventure Shipping SA (Marshall Islands-registered shipowner) under a marine insurance policy.
  • The dispute centers on whether the English Commercial Court has jurisdiction to hear the claim, given a complex jurisdiction clause specifying English law but courts of Cyprus as the primary forum.
  • The court found it has jurisdiction based on the policy’s asymmetrical non-exclusive jurisdiction clause allowing the claimant to sue in any court with jurisdiction, including England.
  • The defendant’s challenge invoking the Hague Convention on choice of court agreements was rejected, as the clause was not an exclusive choice of court agreement under the Convention.

Sanctions Highlights

  • — No sanctions implications identified in the case.

Emerging Risks

  • Jurisdictional uncertainty in marine insurance disputes involving multi-jurisdictional parties and complex jurisdiction clauses.
  • Potential for forum shopping or parallel proceedings due to non-exclusive jurisdiction agreements.
  • Increased litigation risk for insurers and assureds when policies contain asymmetrical jurisdiction clauses.

Geopolitical Impact

  • The case underscores the continuing relevance of English law and courts in international marine insurance disputes despite parties’ registrations in other jurisdictions (Lebanon, Marshall Islands, Cyprus).
  • Highlights the USA/Western legal influence through English law’s primacy in marine insurance and dispute resolution frameworks.
  • Reinforces England and Wales as a preferred forum for complex commercial disputes involving international parties.

Economic Intelligence

  • The decision supports insurer rights to litigate in English courts, potentially affecting underwriting risk assessments and premium pricing in marine insurance.
  • Confirms that insurers may rely on English law and courts even when policies specify other jurisdictions, impacting global insurance market dynamics.
  • May influence contract drafting practices to clarify jurisdictional scope and reduce litigation costs.

Strategic Recommendations

  • Parties to marine insurance contracts should carefully draft jurisdiction clauses to avoid ambiguity between exclusive and non-exclusive jurisdiction.
  • Insurers should consider English courts as a viable forum for dispute resolution even when policies reference other jurisdictions.
  • Legal teams should monitor evolving interpretations of the Hague Convention in commercial contracts to anticipate jurisdictional challenges.
  • Litigants should prepare to address forum non conveniens arguments and jurisdictional estoppel clauses in multi-jurisdictional disputes.

---

**Source Notes:**

Sanctions Intelligence Digest, England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) Decision [2025] EWHC 664 (Comm)

https://empyreanprotocol.com/litigation/view/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/664.html

Brief metadata