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 shipowner) under a marine insurance policy.
- The vessel was a total loss due to an event expressly excluded by the policy (terror or war risks).
- Central legal issue: whether the English Commercial Court has jurisdiction despite a jurisdiction clause favoring the courts of the Republic of Cyprus.
- The court found the jurisdiction clause to be asymmetrical and non-exclusive, permitting the claimant to sue in England under clause [3].
- The defendant’s challenge to jurisdiction based on 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
- Potential for increased jurisdictional disputes in marine insurance claims involving multi-jurisdictional parties and complex jurisdiction clauses.
- Risk of insurers facing challenges when relying on non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses, especially in cross-border insurance disputes.
- Possible precedent for insurers to initiate proceedings in English courts despite contractual preference for other jurisdictions, increasing litigation risk in London.
Geopolitical Impact
- The case underscores the continued significance of English law and English courts in international marine insurance disputes, despite parties’ attempts to designate other jurisdictions (Cyprus).
- Reflects the USA/UK legal ecosystem’s influence on global maritime insurance practices, reinforcing London as a key dispute resolution hub.
- Highlights the Marshall Islands’ role as a ship registry jurisdiction but limited influence in dispute resolution forums.
Economic Intelligence
- The ruling may increase litigation costs and complexity for insurers and shipowners due to potential forum shopping or parallel proceedings.
- English courts’ willingness to assert jurisdiction could affect underwriting risk assessments and premiums in marine insurance markets.
- The decision supports London’s marine insurance market dominance, potentially attracting more disputes and legal service demand.
Strategic Recommendations
- Parties drafting marine insurance policies should clarify jurisdiction clauses to avoid ambiguity and costly jurisdictional disputes.
- Insurers should prepare for potential litigation in English courts even when alternative jurisdictions are contractually preferred.
- Legal teams should monitor evolving interpretations of the Hague Convention and English common law on jurisdiction clauses.
- Consider risk mitigation strategies including arbitration clauses or exclusive jurisdiction agreements to limit forum uncertainty.
---
**Source Notes:**
Case Title: *Berytus Insurance & Reinsurance Company SAL v Golden Adventure Shipping SA* [2025] EWHC 664 (Comm)
Link: https://empyreanprotocol.com/litigation/view/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/664.txt