ABSTRACT
The fact that the reinsurance business was written in the London market through a London broker in accordance with the normal practices of that market was a strong indication that it was governed by English law. At common law, this overlap does not matter. But for the reasons already explored above, the distinction is much more significant under the Rome Convention and insurance directives. There was no evidence to suggest that the contract was connected with that office and there was no one authorised to enter policies from that office, the policies being issued by the head office in Canada. Furthermore, the policies were on a common form issued by the head office, and the court decided that Ontarian law was the proper law of the contract. The claimants applied for leave to serve out of the jurisdiction and one of the grounds relied on was that the contract of reinsurance was governed by English law.
