When Greensill Capital collapsed in 2021 the insurance coverage that underpinned its multi‑billion‑pound supply‑chain finance business came sharply into focus.
Sifting through the rubble of the collapse, Investors and creditors, including Greensill Bank AG, alleged that insurance policies arranged through Marsh and issued via Bond & Credit Co (part of Insurance Australia Group and later Tokio Marine) were misrepresented and unlawfully cancelled before the firm’s spectacular collapse.
The Australian proceedings aim to recover losses said to exceed A$7(£3.4) billion, with Marsh accused of misleading conduct and negligence in its broking role. Marsh, for its part, insists that any disputes belong in the English courts under contractual jurisdiction clauses.
Marsh had wanted to take action in the UK to force the use of a number of UK specific clauses – but its loss in the Federal Court of Australia means it has been barred from taking further steps in its UK legal battle against Greensill Bank AG, after the granted a rare anti-anti-suit injunction in a case that underscores the growing legal exposure of brokers involved in the Greensill collapse.
Read more: Marsh McLennan settles massive lawsuit
The injunction prevents Marsh Ltd and its Australian affiliate, Marsh Pty Ltd, from continuing proceedings in the English High Court that aim to enforce exclusive jurisdiction clauses and halt Greensill’s claims against them in Australia. The decision reflects the Australian court's firm stance in maintaining jurisdiction over a sprawling series of insurance-related claims stemming from the 2021 implosion of Greensill Capital.
Justice Thawley found that Marsh’s conduct in the UK proceedings—especially after its initial request for anti-suit relief was largely refused—amounted to an attempt to frustrate litigation properly underway in Australia. The ruling, delivered late last week, means Marsh cannot seek to block or unwind claims brought against it in seven ongoing Federal Court proceedings, collectively alleging billions in damages from parties involved in insuring or brokering cover for Greensill-linked exposures.
At issue are several engagement letters signed between Marsh Ltd and Greensill Capital (UK), containing English law and exclusive jurisdiction clauses. Marsh argued these applied to Greensill Bank as well, binding it to resolve disputes only in English courts. However, the English High Court only granted interim relief in relation to one of those letters, finding insufficient evidence that Greensill Bank was party to the rest.
Marsh then amended its UK claim, seeking a mandatory injunction requiring Greensill to stay its Australian actions—or alternatively, to pay damages for breach of contract. It was this escalation that triggered Greensill’s successful application in Australia to block Marsh from proceeding further in the English forum.
Justice Thawley noted that the Australian proceedings had been validly brought, were well advanced, and involved statutory claims—such as misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law—that cannot be pursued in England. In that context, allowing Marsh to obtain relief from the English court would, in effect, undercut Australia's ability to adjudicate matters falling squarely within its legal remit.
Marsh leaned heavily on arguments about international comity, stressing the need to respect orders made by the English courts. But the Australian court found that, while comity requires caution and mutual respect, it doesn’t require courts to stand aside when foreign proceedings threaten to interfere with their own processes.
"The injunction sought may interfere with the English proceedings, but it does not negate any existing order," Justice Thawley wrote. "The question is whether this Court should allow its proceedings to be frustrated by litigation launched elsewhere with the purpose of preventing relief being sought here."
The ruling also addressed the balance of convenience. If Marsh were allowed to proceed in the UK and succeeded, it could prevent Greensill from pursuing claims in Australia—potentially undermining Greensill’s ability to recover any damages or defend itself against proportionate liability defences. Conversely, if Marsh failed in Australia, it could still seek damages or remedies in England at a later stage.
This is just the latest legal setback for Marsh, which in May settled a £114 million claim with US private lender White Oak over alleged misrepresentations about insurance coverage arranged for Greensill-backed receivables deals. That case, heard in the English High Court, aired internal emails in which Marsh executives expressed concern over the deteriorating insurance position, describing it as a “frightening absence of corporate governance” and questioning whether they could truthfully reassure clients.
Marsh remains a defendant in multiple Australian proceedings, where it is accused of misleading conduct and negligence in connection with the placement of trade credit insurance policies—many of which allegedly failed when Greensill’s key insurer, Bond & Credit Co (formerly owned by IAG and now part of Tokio Marine), pulled cover.
The Federal Court ruling sends a clear message to insurance intermediaries: jurisdiction clauses are not an impenetrable shield, particularly where statutory rights and public interest litigation are concerned. Brokers engaged in complex, multi-jurisdictional programmes need to be prepared to defend themselves in the jurisdictions where the harm was felt—not just where they’d prefer to litigate.
Greensill Bank AG v Insurance Australia Ltd (Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction Application)
Federal Court of Australia – Judgment: 10 October 2025
Claimants: Greensill Bank AG and insolvency administrator Dr Michael Frege
Defendants: Insurance Australia Ltd, Marsh Pty Ltd, Marsh Ltd, and others
Claim value: Approx. A$7 billion across related proceedings
Trial date (Australia): August 2026 (five months scheduled)
Legal Teams
Greensill Bank AG represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
Marsh represented by Johnson Winter Slattery
The next phase of the Greensill litigation—Australia’s main trial—will test not only the scope of liability for insurers and brokers but also how far courts are willing to stretch jurisdictional boundaries to preserve access to justice for institutional investors and creditors caught in one of the largest insurance-linked failures in recent memory.
