Maritime Mutual Insurance Association (NZ) Limited v Silica Sandport Inc

[2023] NZHC 793

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-2394

[2023] NZHC 793

UNDER

the Arbitration Act 1996

BETWEEN

MARITIME MUTUAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATION (NZ) LIMITED

Applicant

AND

SILICA SANDPORT INC

First Respondent

SRI COMMODITIES IMPORT AND EXPORT INC

Second Respondent

Hearing:	30 March 2023 and further memorandum filed on 4 April 2023
Appearances:	S K Cartwright and C D Hunter for the Applicant No appearance for the Respondents
Judgment:	14 April 2023

JUDGMENT OF GAULT J

(Application for interim injunction)

This judgment was delivered by me on 14 April 2023 at 2:00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Solicitors:

Mr S K Cartwright, Mr G Holm-Hansen and Mr C D Hunter, Hesketh Henry, Auckland

MARITIME MUTUAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATION (NZ) LTD v SILICA SANDPORT INC [2023] NZHC 793 [14 April 2023]

[1]    Following the capsize and loss  of a barge, the  NRC Resolute (the barge),    in international waters north of Trinidad in December 2018, and proceedings in Guyana commenced by the respondents, Maritime Mutual Insurance Association (NZ) Ltd (Association) seeks an interim anti-suit injunction restraining the respondents from continuing the Guyana proceedings on the basis that such proceedings have been commenced in breach of an arbitration agreement.

Parties

[2]    The Association is a New Zealand registered company which operates as a protection and indemnity (P&I) Club, providing a range of marine insurance products to insureds / members. This insurance is usually facilitated by a placing broker, who works in local markets to place insurance on behalf of the Association.

[3]    The first respondent, Silica Sandport Inc (Silica), is a company incorporated in Guyana and was the owner of a tug, the Christopher B Turecamo (the tug), and the barge.

[4]    The second respondent, Sri Commodities Import and Export Inc (Sri), is also a company incorporated in Guyana. Sri operated and managed the barge at all relevant times. The barge was flagged in St Vincent and the Grenadines.

Factual background

[5]    The barge had previously been, and was at the time of its capsize, subject to contracts of insurance with the Association.

[6]    In the relevant year, on 1 June 2018 a renewal indication was issued to Silica and Sri as Association Club members for the 12 month period from 15 July 2018.  As before,1 the renewal indication set out that the conditions were “As per Association Rules” and the policy was subject to the Association’s Rules and the New Zealand Marine Insurance Act 1908.

1      Silica’s original request for membership and insurance in 2016 sought insurance “subject to the General and Class Rules of the Association (as altered from time to time)”.

[7]In particular:

(a)On 16 July 2018 the Club provided confirmation of cover to Silica and Sri for P&I insurance (P&I Cover) which also confirmed the renewal indication that conditions were “as per Association Rules” and provided the URL link where the Rules could be found. The evidence is that this is usual practice in the global marine insurance market.

(b)On 2 November 2018 the Club issued a further quotation for insurance for the barge for a period to be agreed up to midnight 14 July 2019. The further quotation also provided for conditions “as per Association Rules” and provided the URL link where the Rules could be found.

(c)Pursuant to a confirmation of cover dated 16 July 2018, the Association confirmed that it would provide hull and machinery insurance (H&M Cover) in respect of the barge on the terms set out in a confirmation of cover note. The H&M Cover note recorded that H&M Cover was provided, among other things, on the following conditions:

Conditions: As per Association’s Rules but not wider than coverage afforded by: Institute Time Clause Hulls - Limited Perils

1/11/95 (CL 280B).

Excluding crew negligence claims other than errors of judgement in navigation.

Clause 8 deleted.
Clause 23 Cancelling Returns Only.

Excluding all claims arising for piracy, kidnap and ransom...

Rate: ... In the event of the vessel becoming a total loss the full annual Estimated Total Call becomes payable immediately...

Law & Jurisdiction: This policy is subject to the Associations [sic] Rules and the New Zealand Marine Insurance Act 1908...

[8]The Association’s Rules provided, among other things, that:

Rule 41:
Choice of Law

The Rules and any contract of insurance between the Association and a Member shall be governed by and construed in accordance with New Zealand Law

Rule 44:

Disputes and Differences

Subject to General Rule 42, if any difference or dispute shall arise between a Member and the Association out of or in connection with the Rules or any contract between them or as to the rights and obligations of the Association or the Member thereunder or in connection therewith, such difference or dispute shall in the first instance be referred to and adjudicated upon by the Directors. Such reference and adjudication shall be on written submissions only.

If the Member concerned does not accept the decision of the Directors or if the Directors fail to make any decision within three months of the reference to them of the difference or the dispute, it shall be referred to arbitration in Auckland or London, at the discretion of the Directors. The parties shall endeavour to agree on a sole arbitrator. If they cannot agree on a sole arbitrator within 14 days of an invitation to agree a sole arbitrator, then the dispute shall be referred to two arbitrators (one to be appointed by each of the parties) and an umpire to be appointed by the arbitrators ...

Without prejudice to any other provisions of these Rules and without waiving any of the Association's rights hereunder, if the member wishes to refer a dispute or difference to arbitration under these rules, it must do so within three months of a decision of the Directors following a reference of the difference or dispute to the Directors under this rule or, as the case may be, within six months of a reference of any dispute or difference to the Directors hereunder if the Directors have failed to make any decision upon the reference to them of the difference or dispute. In the event that arbitration is not commenced by these time limits, the claim shall be barred and wholly extinguished ...

The submission to arbitration and all connected proceedings shall otherwise be subject to the provisions of the New Zealand Arbitration Act, 1996 or any statutory modification or reenactment thereof or, should the Directors exercise their discretion in favour of London arbitration, to the English Arbitration Act 1996 or any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof. No Member shall be entitled to maintain any action, suit or other legal proceedings against the Association otherwise than in accordance with the procedures laid down in this Rule. A Member may only commence proceedings, other than the arbitration above, in order to enforce an award under such arbitration and then only for such sum, if any, as the award may direct to be paid by the Association...

[9]Thus, any difference or dispute between a member – including the respondents

– and the Association out of or in connection with the Rules of any contract between them or as to the rights and obligations of the Association or the member thereunder or in connection therewith shall in the first instance be referred to and adjudicated upon by the directors, and if the member does not accept that decision, by reference to arbitration. The seat of arbitration is to be either Auckland or London, at the discretion of the directors, and accordingly subject to the New Zealand Arbitration Act 1996 or the English Arbitration Act 1996 as applicable.

[10]   As indicated, in December 2018 in international waters north of Trinidad,   the barge capsized and was lost.

[11]   On 14 May 2019, Silica issued a notice of claim for the total loss of the barge and cargo on the barge, claiming a total of USD 1,176,000.

[12]   On 18 October 2019, solicitors for the respondents wrote further seeking to progress the claim under the contracts of insurance.

[13]   The Association instructed consultants to survey the tug, interview the crew, review the history and condition of the tug and barge, and advise on the possible cause(s) of the barge capsizing.

[14]   The survey report identified a number of concerns relating to the history and condition of the tug and barge, but noted that it was not possible to conclusively identify the cause of the loss of the barge at that time.

[15]   In the meantime, the respondents did not pay calls due to the Association. Calls in respect of P&I Cover and H&M Cover remained outstanding.

[16]   Therefore, on 31 March 2021 the Association issued a notice demanding payment of the outstanding calls within seven days. The notice provided that if the respondents failed to make payment, the insurance they had previously placed with the Association would be cancelled.

[17]   The respondents did not make payment of the outstanding calls, and their insurance was cancelled after 7 April 2021.

[18]   Subsequent correspondence on behalf of the respondents raised numerous allegations claiming breach of agency, fiduciary duty, conflict of interest, fraud and misrepresentation. Allegations regarding compliance with statutes in Guyana have also been raised.

Court proceedings

Guyana

[19]   On 7 December 2021, the respondents commenced court proceedings in the High Court of the Supreme Court of Judicature of Guyana, naming the Association as first defendant and the placing broker, Raj Singh Insurance Brokers and Risk Management Consultants Inc, as second defendant.2

[20]   In the statement of claim dated 7 December 2021, the respondents claimed against the Association:3

(a)damages in excess of GYD 10,000,000 for breach of insurance policies (claim 1(b));

(b)special damages in the sum of USD 1,176,000 (claim 1(c));

(c)damages in excess of GYD 10,000,000 for an alleged conflict of interest (claim 1(d)); and

(d)damages in excess of GYD 10,000,000 for alleged material misrepresentation, fraud and/or professional negligence (claim 1(f)).

2      The proceeding commenced by the respondents in the High Court of the Supreme Court of Judicature of Guyana has the file number 2021-HC-DEM-CIV-SOC354.

3      The respondents pursue claims 1(b), (c) and (d) against “the First and/or Second Named Defendant” and claim 1(f) against “the First and Second Named Defendant”.

[21]   The statement of claim includes an allegation that, despite a dispute and difference arising under the insurance policies, the Association has refused to arbitrate in accordance with the insurance policies.

[22]   On 29 December 2021, the Association was made aware of the claim filed by the respondents in Guyana.

[23]   On 25 May 2022, the Association filed a notice of application protesting the jurisdiction of the Guyana Court.

[24]   On 7 July 2022, the respondents filed an amended statement of claim, adding further claims against the Association:

(a)a declaration that the First Named Defendant breached the provisions of the Insurance Act 2016, Laws of Guyana;

(b)general damages against the First Named Defendant in excess  of GYD 10,000,000 for breach of the Insurance Act 2016 and/or breach of statutory duty.

[25]   On 3 August 2022, the Association filed an affidavit in support of its protest to jurisdiction.

[26]On 1 September 2022, Silica filed an affidavit in response.

New Zealand

[27]   On 20 December 2022, the Association filed an originating application for permanent anti-suit injunction, a without notice application for interim injunction with affidavits in support, an undertaking as to damages, draft orders and a bundle of authorities. The Association sought to proceed without notice on the basis that requiring it to proceed on notice would cause undue delay given the timetable in the Guyana proceedings. Downs J, as Duty Judge, declined without notice relief

indicating that the Association could return to Court once it had served the respondents.4

[28]   On 10 February 2023, having been unable to serve the respondents in Guyana,5 the Association filed a without notice interlocutory application seeking orders for substituted service. On 16 February 2023, Lang J directed that substituted service was to be effected on the respondents by means of service to the email address of the solicitors acting for the respondents in Guyana and made timetable orders.6

[29]   The New Zealand proceeding was served on the respondents on 17 February 2023. The notice of  hearing on 30 March 2023  was served on the respondents on  24 February 2023.

[30]   Although served, the respondents have taken no steps in this proceeding and there was no appearance by them or on their behalf at the hearing.

Update in Guyana

[31]   The protest  to  jurisdiction  in  Guyana  was  set  down  for  a  hearing  on  15 February 2023. However, on 9 January 2023, the Association’s counsel in Guyana advised the Guyana Court that the Association had  commenced  proceedings  in New Zealand seeking an anti-suit injunction. Following a response by counsel for the respondents on 13 January 2023 and a virtual directions hearing on 17 January 2023, the Court in Guyana issued verbal timetable directions as follows:

10 days to the Applicant to file affidavit in reply to affidavit in answer to second Defendant on or before 27 January;

Concurrent submissions on or before 27 February;

Concurrent replies on or before 15 March - limited to 5 pages 12 font size Times New Roman 1.5 space;

4      Maritime Mutual Insurance Association (NZ) Ltd v Silica Sandport Inc HC Auckland CIV-2022- 404-002394, 20 December 2022 (Minute of Downs J).

5      The respondents’ lawyers in the Guyana proceeding said they were not authorised to accept service and the respondents’ registered offices could not be located. Copies were subsequently sent by registered post, which is apparently a permitted method of service of Court documents in Guyana.

6      Maritime Mutual Insurance Association (NZ) Ltd v Silica Sandport Inc HC Auckland CIV-2022- 404-002394, 16 February 2023 (Minute of Lang J).

(If there is an injunction in NZ, another application should be filed to place it before the Court):

Ruling on 19 April at 3.30.

Applicable principles for interim relief

Principles governing grant of interim injunctions

[32]   The general principles governing applications for interim injunctions are well-established. They were summarised by the Court of Appeal in Commerce Commission v Viagogo AG:7

The principles that govern the grant of interim injunctions under r 7.53 and the court's inherent jurisdiction are well settled. The court will usually adopt a two-stage approach.8 The first inquiry is whether there is a serious question to be tried. If that threshold is met, the court moves on to consider whether the balance of convenience favours granting or refusing relief. But as this Court observed in Klissers Farmhouse Bakeries Ltd v Harvest Bakeries Ltd, considerations are marshalled under these (non-exhaustive) heads as “an aid to determining, as regards the grant or refusal of an interim injunction, where overall justice lies. In every case the Judge has finally to stand back and ask himself that question.”9

Principles applicable to the grant of anti-suit injunctions

[33]   The anti-suit injunction is a long-recognised species of equitable injunction that restrains a defendant from pursuing proceedings overseas that are vexatious or oppressive.10 A particular form of anti-suit injunction – known as an anti-enforcement injunction – is available to restrain a defendant from enforcing a judgment already obtained overseas.11

[34]   Although uncommon in New Zealand, the Court has power to grant anti-suit injunctions.12 As Fitzgerald J said in Lu v Industrial Commercial Bank of China

7      Commerce Commission v Viagogo AG [2019] NZCA 472, [2019] 3 NZLR 559 at [30].

8      See American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396 (HL).

9      Klissers Farmhouse Bakeries Ltd v Harvest Bakeries Ltd [1985] 2 NZLR 129 (CA) at 142.

10 CSR Ltd v Cigna Insurance Australia Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 345, (1997) 146 ALR 402; Bushby v Munday (1821) 5 Madd 297. See also Société Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v Lee Kui Jak [1987] AC 871 (PC) at 892–896.

11 Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd [2022] NZHC 2881 at [36] and [42]-[43].

12 Lu v Industrial Commercial Bank of China (New Zealand) Ltd [2020] NZHC 402 at [100]-[101]; Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd [2022] NZHC 2881 at [37]. See also the earlier case of Jonmer Inc v Maltexo Inc (1996) 110 PRNZ 119 (HC).

(New Zealand) Ltd, the legal principles, which derive largely from a number of leading United Kingdom decisions, are reasonably well-settled.13

[35]   As Lord Goff of Chieveley said in the Privy Council decision of Société Nationale Industrielle Aero-Spatiale v Lee Kui Jak:14

The law relating to injunctions restraining a party from commencing or pursuing legal proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction has a long history, stretching back at least as far as the early 19th century. From an early stage, certain basic principles emerged which are now beyond dispute. First, the jurisdiction is to be exercised when the “ends of justice” require it … Second, where the court decides to grant an injunction restraining proceedings in a foreign court, its order is directed not against the foreign court but against the parties so proceeding or threatening to proceed … Third, it follows that an injunction will only be issued restraining a party who is amenable to the jurisdiction of the court, against whom an injunction will be an effective remedy ... Fourth, it has been emphasised on many occasions that, since such order indirectly affects the foreign court, the jurisdiction is one which must be exercised with caution …

[36]   Although an anti-suit injunction formally operates on the conscience of the defendant, rather than being directed to the foreign court, the courts are understandably cautious about granting an order that may be seen as interfering in the operation of foreign courts.15

[37]The courts have adopted a three-step analysis:16

(a)First, the local court must have jurisdiction over the defendant. As part of this, the local court must be satisfied that it has a sufficient interest in, or connection with, the matter in question to justify the indirect interference with the foreign court that an anti-suit injunction entails. This is necessary to ensure that considerations of comity are given sufficient weight.17

13     Lu v Industrial Commercial Bank of China (New Zealand) Ltd [2020] NZHC 402 at [100].

14     Société Nationale Industrielle Aero-Spatiale v Lee Kui Jak [1987] 1 AC 871 (PC) at 892.

15     Lu v Industrial Commercial Bank of China (New Zealand) Ltd [2020] NZHC 402 at [102]; Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd [2022] NZHC 2881 at [39].

16     Lu v Industrial Commercial Bank of China (New Zealand) Ltd [2020] NZHC 402 at [103]; Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd [2022] NZHC 2881 at [40].

17     Lu v Industrial Commercial Bank of China (New Zealand) Ltd [2020] NZHC 402 at [106], citing

Airbus Industrie G.I.E v Patel [1999] 1 AC 119 (HL) at 138.

(b)Secondly, the local court must be satisfied that the commencement or continuation of the foreign proceedings, or the conduct of the defendant in the context of those proceedings, is vexatious, oppressive or otherwise unconscionable. Part of this enquiry is asking whether the plaintiff has a legitimate interest in seeking to restrain the conduct of the defendant.

(c)Thirdly, the court must ultimately ask itself whether the interests of justice require the injunction to be granted.

[38]   Comity has a smaller role in cases involving an agreement to arbitrate given the Court’s role in upholding  and  enforcing  the  parties’  contractual  bargain.18  The requirements were recently summarised in QBE Europe SA/NV v Generali Espana de Seguros Y Reaseguros as follows (apart from the English Court’s statutory power):19

ii)The touchstone is what the ends of justice require.

iii)The jurisdiction to grant an [anti-suit injunction] should be exercised with caution.

iv)The injunction applicant must establish with a “high degree of probability” that there is an arbitration or jurisdiction agreement which governs the dispute in question.

v)The court will ordinarily exercise its discretion to restrain the pursuit of proceedings brought in breach of a forum clause unless the defendant can show strong reasons to refuse the relief (relying on Aggeliki Charis Compania Maritima SA v Pagnan SpA (The Angelic Grace) [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 87).

vi)The defendant bears the burden of proving there are strong reasons.

11.By way of further elaboration of those last two points:

18 O.T. Africa Line Ltd v Magic Sportswear Corp [2005] EWCA Civ 710. See also Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38; and West Tankers Inc v RAS Riunione Adriatica di Sicurta SpA (The Front Comor) [2007] UKHL 4. New Zealand Courts also recognise the importance of arbitral proceedings, and the autonomy of the parties who wish to choose arbitration for dispute resolution: Van Leeuwen Group Ltd v Attorney General [2020] NZHC 215, [2020] 2 NZLR 502; and Tavendale & Partners Ltd v Dineen [2022] NZHC 1530.

19 QBE Europe SA/NV v Generali Espana de Seguros Y Reaseguros [2022] EWHC 2062 (Comm) at [10]-[11]. See also UK P&I Club NV & Anor v Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela [2022] EWHC 1655 (Comm) at [30]-[31].

i)It has been held that respect for comity is not a strong reason for the court not to give effect to a contractual choice of forum clause, and that comity requires that where there is an agreement for a sole forum for the resolution of disputes under a contract, that agreement is respected: Males LJ in AIG Europe, [8].20 By way of parenthesis, in that context, comity is served by applying the same respect to choice of court or arbitration agreements in favour of other jurisdictions and arbitral seats.

ii)It has been held that the existence of a mandatory provision of foreign law applicable in the foreign court which overrides the contractual choice of jurisdiction is not a strong reason to refuse an [anti-suit injunction]: Shipowners’ Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association (Luxembourg) v Containerships Denizcilik Nakliyat ve Ticaret (The Yusuf Cepnioglou) [2016] EWCA Civ 386, [34]-[37] and [57]-[58] and Thomas Raphael QC, The Anti-Suit Injunction (2nd) (Raphael), [8.31] – [8.44].

Issues

[39]I address the issues arising as follows:

(a)whether there is a high degree of probability that there is an arbitration agreement which governs the dispute and in which the New Zealand Court has a sufficient interest;

(b)if so, whether there are strong reasons to refuse relief (despite the applicant’s legitimate interest); and

(c)whether the interests of justice favour relief.

Arbitration agreement

[40]   It is evident from the statement of claim in the Guyana proceeding that the orders sought arise “out of or in connection with the Rules” in terms of clause 44 set out above, applying New Zealand law as the governing law of the contracts as prescribed in clause 41. There is a high degree of probability that the Rules form part of the contracts of insurance with the Association given the contracts’ reference to the Rules, the evidence of usual practice and the New Zealand Court’s approach to

20     AIG Europe SA and Ors v John Wood Group Plc and Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 781.

contractual terms incorporated by reference.21 Indeed, the statement of claim in the Guyana proceeding alleges that, despite a dispute and difference arising under the insurance policies, the Association has refused to arbitrate in accordance with the insurance policies. Even assuming that is correct (which the Association denies), the appropriate remedy would be a stay in favour of arbitration in the relevant jurisdiction. Instead, the pleading in Guyana specifically claims for breach of the insurance policies. It also brings claims in misrepresentation etc which are very likely also essentially contractual and within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

[41]   I also consider that the inclusion of a statutory cause of action in the amended statement of claim in the Guyana proceeding (filed after the Association’s protest to jurisdiction) does not take the proceeding outside the scope of the arbitration agreement in clause 44. Although the Association acknowledges that it is only disputes under the contract of insurance that can be subject to the arbitration agreement contained in the Rules and that statutory causes of action are likely required to be determined by the relevant jurisdictions provided for in those statutes, Mr Cartwright for the Association submitted that it could be inferred that the statutory claim is within the scope of the arbitration agreement and could be addressed in the arbitration.   That may be correct but, in any event, other claims appear squarely within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

[42]   For these reasons, I consider there is a high degree of probability that there is an arbitration agreement which governs the dispute and that the respondents’ proceeding in Guyana breaches the agreement not to commence other proceedings.

[43]   Given the insurance contracts provide for arbitration in either Auckland or London, at the discretion of the directors, and accordingly subject to the New Zealand Arbitration Act 1996 or the English Arbitration Act 1996 as applicable, and the directors have expressed a preference for Auckland, I also consider the New Zealand Court has a sufficient interest in upholding and enforcing the arbitration agreement.

21     BBX Financial Solutions Pty Ltd & Anor v Wallace [2011] NZCA 667 at [46].

Reasons to refuse relief

[44]   Although the respondents have taken no steps in the proceeding and therefore have not advanced or proved there are strong reasons to decline relief, I address three matters. First, even if a statutory cause of action in the amended statement of claim in the Guyana proceeding were outside the scope of the arbitration agreement and needs to be determined by the relevant jurisdiction provided for in that statute, that is not a strong reason to require disputes under the contract of insurance to be litigated other than in accordance with the arbitration agreement.

[45]   Secondly, I note that arbitration proceedings have yet to be commenced. However, I do not consider that weighs against relief.22 It is not incumbent on the Association to commence the arbitration proceedings. The Association is not the claimant, and it may seek to argue that the respondents’ claim is extinguished.

[46]   Thirdly, I consider the issue of delay.23 The proceedings in Guyana came to the Association’s attention in late December 2021. It filed a protest to jurisdiction in Guyana in May 2022. It may have hoped the respondents would not oppose its protest, at least until September 2022 when an affidavit in response was filed. The Association could then  have  applied  to  this  Court  more  quickly,  rather  than  applying  on  20 December 2022 on a without notice basis. However, longer delays have been allowed in England  at least where the overseas proceedings  have not  advanced.24  In this case, the protest to jurisdiction in Guyana remains to be determined, the Court in Guyana is aware of this New Zealand application for an anti-suit injunction against the respondents, and this decision will be available before the Guyana Court ruling on 19 April 2023. I do not consider that delay provides a strong reason to refuse relief in the context of this dispute.

22 For example, arbitration proceedings had not already commenced in Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38 at [17]-[22].

23 See Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd [2022] NZHC 2881 at [72].

24 In Africa Finance Corp v Aiteo Eastern E&P Co Ltd [2022] EWHC 768 (Comm) at [94] the Court allowed 13 months. In Specialised Vessel Services Ltd v Mop Marine Nigeria Ltd [2021] EWHC 333 at [43]-[47] one year was allowed.

Interests of justice

[47]   In the circumstances set out, I consider the interests of justice favour granting relief to uphold and enforce the arbitration agreement  in  the insurance contracts.  As indicated, there is a high degree of probability that there is an arbitration agreement which governs the dispute and that the respondents’ proceeding in Guyana breaches the agreement not to commence other proceedings. There are no strong reasons to refuse relief. Indeed, there is a good reason to grant relief to give effect to a contractual choice of forum.

Result

[48]   I make an order restraining the first and second respondents, until further order of this Court, from continuing the extant proceeding commenced by the respondents against the applicant with file number 2021-HC-DEM-CIV-SOC354 in the High Court of the Supreme Court of Judicature of Guyana, and/or commencing or continuing any other proceedings against the applicant other than in accordance with an arbitration agreement between the applicant and the respondents contained in insurance policies in respect of the vessel NRC Resolute.

[49]Costs are reserved.

Gault J