Deutsche Bank AG London Branch v Petromena ASA [2015] EWCA Civ 226 (18 March 2015)

Deutsche Bank AG London Branch v Petromena ASA [2015] EWCA Civ 226 (18 March 2015)

Petromena, by filing a second acknowledgment of service after its jurisdiction challenge failed and without seeking an extension of time or withdrawal, is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the English court under CPR 11(8). This constitutes an appearance for the purposes of Article 24 of the Lugano Convention. The Norwegian exclusive jurisdiction clause does not apply as the claims do not arise out of or in connection with the Loan Agreement but from an alleged advisory relationship. The English court therefore has jurisdiction.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 226
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Deutsche Bank AG London Branch; Appellant/defendant: Petromena ASA (in bankruptcy, represented by the chairman of the board of directors, Enterprise No. 987 727 713)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Jurisdictional Challenge
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; jurisdiction upheld
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Submission to Jurisdiction, Negative Declaratory Relief, Lugano Convention, Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses
Civil Procedure Private International Law Commercial Law Jurisdiction Submission to Jurisdiction Negative Declaratory Relief Lugano Convention Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deutsche Bank AG London Branch

Respondent/claimant

Petromena ASA (in bankruptcy, represented by the chairman of the board of directors, Enterprise No. 987 727 713)

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Jurisdictional Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Petromena submitted to the jurisdiction of the English court by filing a second acknowledgment of service under CPR 11(8)
  2. 2 Whether the English court has jurisdiction under Article 24 of the Lugano Convention
  3. 3 Whether the dispute falls within the scope of a Norwegian exclusive jurisdiction clause under Article 23 of the Lugano Convention

Ratio Decidendi

Petromena, by filing a second acknowledgment of service after its jurisdiction challenge failed and without seeking an extension of time or withdrawal, is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the English court under CPR 11(8). This constitutes an appearance for the purposes of Article 24 of the Lugano Convention. The Norwegian exclusive jurisdiction clause does not apply as the claims do not arise out of or in connection with the Loan Agreement but from an alleged advisory relationship. The English court therefore has jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; jurisdiction upheld

Orders

  • The order of Gloster LJ is upheld; the English court has jurisdiction under Article 24 of the Lugano Convention by reason of Petromena's appearance.