Court rejects insurer's claim

The Supreme Court has rejected a claim by insurer Alte Leipziger that the Irish courts have no jurisdiction to hear and determine…

The Supreme Court has rejected a claim by insurer Alte Leipziger that the Irish courts have no jurisdiction to hear and determine the Minister for Agriculture's claim that he has a valid contract of insurance with it. The contract related to the alleged destruction of £22 million (£17.3 million) of intervention beef after a fire at a meat plant in Co Roscommon in 1992.

The application is part of complex litigation arising from a fire at the United Meat Packers plant at Ballaghaderreen on January 7th, 1992. The meat allegedly destroyed was delivered to the plant by the Minister in his capacity as intervention agent on behalf of the EC.

Several insurance firms have denied liability for the alleged multimillion-pound meat loss, and Alte Leipziger, a German company, has claimed it was not on any risk regarding the fire.

In his proceedings against Alte Leipziger, the Minister wants a declaration that a contract of insurance between the Minister and the company, said to be evidenced by a letter and coverslip dated October 28th, 1991, was a valid and binding contract of insurance at the time of the fire.

READ MORE

Alte Leipziger had contested the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear and determine the Minister's claim. It sought an order from the High Court setting aside the service of the proceedings on it on the grounds that the insurance policy, if any, upon which the Minister relies contained a clause which conferred sole jurisdiction on the Tribunal de Commerce in Paris, to hear disputes between the parties.

The High Court refused that order and Alte Leipziger appealed to the Supreme Court. The five-judge court yesterday unanimously dismissed the appeal. Giving the court's judgment, the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, said neither the High nor Supreme Court in this application was concerned with the substantive dispute between the Minister and Alte Leipziger regarding whether the firm was obliged to indemnify the Minister regarding the damage sustained in the fire. It was dealing only with the jurisdictional point.