Cross-post: Conflicting dispute provisions in market standard contracts

In a clash of market standard forms, which contract's dispute resolution clause will prevail? In two recent decisions, the English courts came to different conclusions in each case based on slightly different fact patterns. 

In both cases, the parties had agreed to use a standard form reinsurance policy which provides for disputes to be resolved by English law and that English courts had exclusive jurisdiction over any dispute. They subsequently issued a further document covering the same subject matter, which provided for New York law and a corresponding arbitration clause to govern any disputes.

Crucially, this then affected whether an anti-suit injunction could be sought before an English court. In the first case, the court nevertheless stressed that pending resolution of the conflicting provisions, it would not necessarily be improper for a party to seek an injunction from the English courts to stay proceedings in New York. However, given that in this case, the court ultimately concluded that the proceedings were to be governed by New York law, there was no ground to award any anti-suit injunction related to it. 

The decisions highlight the importance of scrutinising the dispute resolution clauses in different contracts to ensure that any future dispute resolution process is what the parties actually desire. The courts' fact-sensitive approach also signals that every case must be treated on its merits - not all 'battles of the forms' will be treated the same way, and the outcome of every case depends on how the parties conduct themselves, including whether their actions accord with "business common sense". 

For more information see this post on our Insurance Notes blog.