Deutsche Bank AG London Branch v Petromena ASA

Deutsche Bank AG London Branch v Petromena ASA

Petromena, by filing a second acknowledgment of service after its failed jurisdiction challenge, is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the English court under CPR Part 11(8). This constitutes an appearance for the purposes of Article 24 of the Lugano Convention. The claims do not fall within the Norwegian exclusive jurisdiction clause, as they do not arise out of or in connection with the Loan Agreement. Whether the claims are contractual or tortious, the English court has jurisdiction under the relevant provisions of the Lugano Convention.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Deutsche Bank AG London Branch; Defendant/appellant: 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; English court has jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Submission to Jurisdiction, Lugano Convention, Negative Declaratory Relief, Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses
Civil Procedure Private International Law Conflict of Laws Jurisdiction Submission to Jurisdiction Lugano Convention Negative Declaratory Relief 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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deutsche Bank AG London Branch

Claimant/respondent

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

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Jurisdictional Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Petromena ASA submitted to the jurisdiction of the English court by filing a second acknowledgment of service under CPR Part 11(8)
  2. 2 Whether the English court has jurisdiction under Article 24 of the Lugano Convention
  3. 3 Whether Petromena's claims fall 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 failed jurisdiction challenge, is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the English court under CPR Part 11(8). This constitutes an appearance for the purposes of Article 24 of the Lugano Convention. The claims do not fall within the Norwegian exclusive jurisdiction clause, as they do not arise out of or in connection with the Loan Agreement. Whether the claims are contractual or tortious, the English court has jurisdiction under the relevant provisions of the Lugano Convention.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; English court has jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Petromena's application for a declaration that the English court has no jurisdiction is dismissed.
  • The respondent's notice is upheld; the English court has jurisdiction under Article 24 of the Lugano Convention.