In the case of International Raw Materials Ltd. v Steadfast Insurance Company dated August 10, 2023, a ruling was issued on preliminary motions regarding territorial competence. The defendant, Steadfast Insurance Company, had sought to establish that the court lacked territorial competence over claims brought by plaintiffs International Raw Materials Ltd. (IRM) and Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company (Ironshore). Steadfast had also argued for an alternative, suggesting that the court should defer jurisdiction to a more suitable forum in the United States. The plaintiffs had contended that Steadfast had submitted to the court's jurisdiction by participating in the defense of the actions and had asserted a substantial connection between the claims and British Columbia. They had argued that the court had territorial competence and should retain its role as the chosen forum. The court had assessed various factors to determine whether it should retain jurisdiction over the claims at issue. Section 11(2) factors had favored the court keeping jurisdiction, primarily due to concerns regarding multiple legal proceedings and conflicting decisions in different courts. However, the possibility of foreign law governing the issues had presented a counterpoint. The uncertainty surrounding the governing law had complicated reaching a definitive conclusion at that point. Concerning costs, no submissions had been made on the matter. It had been observed that if the plaintiffs had succeeded in their claims against the defendant, they likely would have been entitled to costs for these applications, unless any party had wished to argue differently through the appropriate channels.