Article

Prior History:Society of Lloyd's v. Saunders, 2000 Ont. Sup. C.J. LEXIS 433 (2000), noted at 2001 Annual Survey 265.

Note:Alleging fraud, many investors in Lloyd's insurance syndicates sought to enjoin drawings on LCs posted to secure their obligations. To resolve its dispute with the Names throughout the world, Lloyd's created a Reconstruction and Renewal Plan under which it initiated reinsurance plans with a group of companies known as "Equitas". The Names would then make contributions to the cash calls that Lloyd's made. The Canadian Names that did not agree to the settlement continued their action against Lloyd's in England.

To compel payment into the Equitas funds, Lloyd's initiated an action in an English court against these Names, contending that they still had a duty to pay the Equitas premiums. The English court ruled in favor of Lloyd's. Lloyd's then sued in a Canadian court to enforce the English judgment. The issue was whether the Canadian court would honor the English court's ruling. The Court of Ontario, Superior Court of Justice, Swinton, J., concluded that the English court's ruling was enforceable in Canada because enforcement of the decision was not "contrary to natural justice."

The Names appealed, arguing enforcement would be contrary to public policy. The Ontario Court of Appeal, Laskin, Goudge, and Feldman, JJ.A., affirmed, ruling that the appeal should be dismissed.

Describing the case as "the second Ontario instalment of the story of a worldwide investment disaster … . [that] mirrors similar battles waged around the world by other domestic and international Names", the appellate court noted: "[The trial court] by granting the motion to stay on the basis of forum non conveniens, had effectively decided that if the English courts determined that Ontario law was not the proper law of the contracts, the resulting judgements would not be contrary to our public policy. Further, the principles of international comity mandated the rejection of the public policy argument."

COPYRIGHT OF THE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL BANKING LAW & PRACTICE

The views expressed in this Case Summary are those of the Institute of International Banking Law and Practice and not necessarily those of ICC or the other partners in DC-PRO.