JURE SUMMARY

JURE SUMMARY

A dinghy belonging to a sea rescue company assisted a ship belonging to an company X having its seat in France. The rescue company later brought an action before the Tribunal de grande instance of Lyon (FR) and requested that the investment research company be ordered to pay the costs of the assistance to it. The investment research company claimed that the costs should be paid by the English maritime insurance brokers, with whom it had insured the ship and, in particular, that risk. The brokers challenged the international jurisdiction of the French court, relying on a clause in the policy which conferred jurisdiction on the English courts. The court confirmed the international lack of competence and ordered the investment research company to pay a certain sum for the costs of assistance. The judgment was confirmed on appeal, and the investment research company lodged an appeal in cassation. The Cour de cassation (FR) dismisses the decision issued on appeal. The court holds that the parties to an international contract for maritime insurance can, even to the benefit of the insurer, agree on a clause conferring jurisdiction which derogates from the general jurisdiction of the court at the domicile of the policyholder. However, this rule should comply with the requirements laid down in Article 17 Brussels Convention. The judge seised of the dispute should have inquired as to whether the investment research company had knowledge of such a rule and had accepted it. Since the judges deciding the matter did not make any such investigation, they did not have legal basis for their decision.