In Chubb Bermuda Insurance Ltd v Fertitta Entertainment Inc & Ors [2026] EWHC 1392 (Comm), the London Commercial Court has issued judgment granting a final anti-suit injunction restraining proceedings in the US brought in breach of an arbitration clause that read in part:
“Any dispute arising out of or relating to this Policy, or the breach thereof, shall be fully and finally determined in London, England under the provisions of the Arbitration Act of 1996 (as amended or supplemented) by an Arbitration Board composed of three arbitrators. Each arbitrator shall be an active Queens Counsel or retired judge of the English High Court or Court of Appeal familiar with insurance and the Act. All matters relating to the existence of the agreement to arbitrate and the selection of arbitrators shall be determined under the laws of England and Wales”.
The Defendants did not appear at the final hearing despite belatedly applying to contest English jurisdiction having previously agreed to several consent orders continuing the initial interim anti-suit injunction.
The Defendants’ three arguments were: i) the arbitration clause was invalid as a matter of Louisiana law based on a mandatory statute; ii) the case had no connection to England and the Defendants had not submitted to the jurisdiction; and iii) Louisiana was the more suitable forum.
The judge gave arguments ii) and iii) short shrift (at [44]): “If the arbitration agreement is valid, then points (2) and (3) do not matter”.
In relation to argument i), the judge held that the arbitration agreement was governed by English law and that as regards the scope of that agreement, “Because the parties have expressly agreed that this falls to be determined under English law, Louisiana law is irrelevant”.
The judge also ordered damages in the amount of the legal fees incurred by the Claimant in England in resisting the various US proceedings, as well as its costs in England on the indemnity basis.
Disclaimer: This Alert has been prepared and published for informational purposes only and is not offered, nor should be construed, as legal advice. For more information, please see the firm's full disclaimer.
[View Source]