The Court of Appeal has dismissed Ingosstrakh Insurance Company’s appeal against an order allowing Irish proceedings to continue against it over insurance claims relating to two Boeing 737-800 aircraft. The court affirmed the High Court order refusing to set aside service of the proceedings for want of jurisdiction.
The plaintiffs, Carlyle Aviation Management Limited and SASOF III (D) Aviation Ireland DAC, claim indemnity under war risks and all risks insurance policies for the alleged loss of aircraft leased to Russian airline NordStar. They say the aircraft were seized by the Russian Federation after its invasion of Ukraine. The claims against the insurers, including Ingosstrakh, have not been determined.
The appeal concerned jurisdiction only. The Court of Appeal, in a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Allen on 6 December 2023, said the High Court had jurisdiction under an insurance document that provided for Irish law and the exclusive jurisdiction of the insureds’ country of domicile. The document listed the plaintiffs at a Dublin address. The court also relied on the High Court’s alternative conclusion that the plaintiffs met the relevant service-out requirements under Order 11 of the Rules of the Superior Courts.
Ingosstrakh relied on an Operator’s Policy issued to NordStar, which included a provision for disputes with legal entities to be heard in the Arbitration Court of Moscow unless the insurance contract provided otherwise. The Court of Appeal noted that the High Court had found the Operator’s Policy applied only “as far as applicable” and that its dispute provision could be displaced by a contrary term in the insurance contract. Ingosstrakh’s counsel acknowledged on appeal that there was no evidence of Russian law and that the insurer’s affidavit had not explained how the Operator’s Policy connected with the Irish Evidence of Cover document.
The appellate court concluded that the insurer had not identified an analytical error in the High Court’s reasoning and dismissed the appeal. It ordered that the High Court order be affirmed.
On costs, the court said the plaintiffs had been entirely successful and provisionally indicated that they should receive their appeal costs. It allowed Ingosstrakh 14 days to file written submissions, limited to 1,000 words, arguing for a different costs order. The plaintiffs would then have 14 days to respond. The judgment did not make a final determination on the costs issue.