UK Court of Appeal upholds Tyson anti-suit injunction

In a significant development in the context of cross-border insurance and reinsurance jurisdiction disputes, the English Court of Appeal has upheld the Commercial Court’s grant of a permanent anti-suit injunction in Tyson International Insurance Company Ltd v. GIC Re, India, Corporate Member Ltd [2026] EWCA (Civ) 40.

The judgment will be of particular interest to insurance practitioners engaged with the London Market Reform Contract (the MRC), as well as to commercial practitioners more broadly, especially those dealing with contracts containing multiple dispute resolution clauses. The judgment, handed down on 5 February 2026, can be read in full online.

Background to the dispute

The dispute arose from losses suffered by Tyson Foods, Inc. following a substantial fire at one of its poultry processing facilities in Hanceville, Alabama. Tyson International, the Bermudan “captive” insurer for the Tyson group, accepted coverage under the Tyson property programme and notified its reinsurers, including GIC Re, India (GIC). GIC had underwritten portions of two layers within the reinsurance program, but following the fire, GIC sought to rescind its coverage.

Two layers of reinsurance were placed in 2021: the first through an MRC on 30 June 2021 and the second via a Market Uniform Reinsurance Agreement (the Certificate) on 9 July 2021. The MRC included an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the English courts, whereas the Certificate contained a New York arbitration clause. Critically, the Certificate was endorsed with a Confusion Clause providing that the MRC would take precedence over the Certificate in the event of confusion between conflicting terms.

The parties became embroiled in a jurisdictional dispute over whether the coverage claim should be heard in the English Commercial Court or in arbitration in New York.

Commercial Court decision

At first instance before Nigel Cooper KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge), Tyson International was granted a permanent anti-suit injunction, converting the interim anti-suit relief initially obtained ex parte into final relief and dismissing GIC’s competing application to either challenge the jurisdiction of the English court or to secure a stay under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

GIC was given permission to appeal on two principal grounds:

• That the Commercial Court had erred in its interpretation of the Confusion Clause by treating it as applicable only where the Certificate was uncertain in meaning; and
• That the judge should have held that the arbitration clause and the exclusive jurisdiction clause were reconcilable, with the arbitration agreement taking priority and the English courts exercising auxiliary or supervisory jurisdiction over the New York arbitration

UK Court of Appeal’s analysis

In a unanimous judgment, the UK Court of Appeal (Nugee LJ, with Asplin and Miles LJJ agreeing) upheld the Commercial Court’s decision in its entirety. The court’s reasoning can be summarised as follows.

• Interpretation of the Confusion Clause: The court emphasises the language and commercial purpose of the Confusion Clause, holding that it required the MRC and the Certificate to be read together, with the MRC taking precedence in the event of inconsistency. Importantly, “confusion” was construed broadly to encompass a conflicting state of affairs arising from two different dispute resolution provisions addressing the same subject matter
• Reconciliation of competing provisions: In addressing GIC’s second ground of appeal, the court reaffirmed that contractual interpretation is paramount. While English law presumes that parties intend to agree on a single coherent mechanism for dispute resolution, such a presumption can be displaced where the contractual language and structure dictate otherwise. Given the temporal separation of the two agreements and the explicit Confusion Clause establishing a hierarchy between the documents, the court held that reconciling the clauses by giving primacy to the arbitration provision – effectively subordinating the exclusive English jurisdiction clause – would have inverted the parties’ bargain.
• Auxiliary or supervisory jurisdiction: The court also rejected GIC’s submission that the English court could retain auxiliary or supervisory jurisdiction over a New York arbitration in this context, observing that the particular contractual architecture hierarchy deployed by the parties did not support such an outcome.

Practical and strategic implications

This judgment reinforces important principles for international (re)insurance and commercial contracts with multiple, potentially conflicting dispute resolutions clauses.

• Hierarchy/Confusion Clauses matter: Express provisions that establish a hierarchy between documents can be decisive in resolving disputes arising from competing forum selection clauses. Parties should give careful consideration to the drafting and interplay of such clauses to avoid unintended jurisdictional outcomes.
• Commercial and contextual construction: The court’s approach underscores that the overarching contractual structure and commercial purpose of the parties’ agreements remain central to interpreting dispute resolution provisions, particularly where documents are negotiated or agreed at different times.
• The robustness of anti-suit relief: The decision highlights the robust nature of English court anti-suit injunctions as a tool for enforcing the agreed forum and avoiding parallel proceedings in other jurisdictions where inconsistent dispute resolution provisions might otherwise give rise to costly and inefficient forum battles.

Conclusion

The UK Court of Appeal’s judgment provides authoritative guidance on the interpretation and effect of conflicting dispute resolution clauses embedded in layered contractual documentation. It affirms the English courts’ willingness to uphold carefully drafted contractual hierarchies and to deploy anti-suit injunctions to preserve agreed dispute resolution frameworks. Parties and practitioners should reexamine contract suites containing multiple dispute resolution mechanisms to ensure alignment with commercial objectives and legal enforceability.

Reed Smith represented Tyson International Company Limited, and instructed Timothy Killen of 3 Verulam Buildings and James Partridge of 2 Temple Gardens.

Client Alert 2026-029