The Public Institution for Social Security v Banque Pictet & CIE SA & Ors.

The Public Institution for Social Security v Banque Pictet & CIE SA & Ors.

The appeal was dismissed because the exclusive jurisdiction clauses were valid and binding under Article 23/25, even without actual communication, and covered the bribery and accessory claims. The wider accessory claims did not fall within the EJCs but, under Article 6, it was not expedient for the English court to assume jurisdiction, as this would increase the risk of irreconcilable judgments due to overlapping proceedings in Switzerland. England was not the appropriate forum for claims against Pictet Bahamas and Pictet Asia.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: The Public Institution for Social Security (PIFSS); Third Respondent/defendant: Banque Pictet & Cie SA; Fourth Respondent/defendant: Mr Philippe Bertherat; Fifth Respondent/defendant: Mr Kamran Amouzegar; Eighth Respondent/defendant: Pictet & Cie (Europe) SA; Ninth Respondent/defendant: Pictet Bank and Trust Limited; Tenth Respondent/defendant: Bank Pictet & Cie (Asia) Limited; Eleventh Respondent/defendant: Mirabaud & Cie SA; Twelfth Respondent/defendant: Mr Pierre Mirabaud; Thirteenth Respondent/defendant: Mr Thierry Fauchier-Magnan; Fourteenth Respondent/defendant: Mr Luc Argand
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Jurisdiction and Forum
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses, Forum Non Conveniens, Brussels I Regulation, Lugano Convention, Banking Law, Bribery and Corruption, Money Laundering
Civil Procedure Private International Law Jurisdiction Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses Forum Non Conveniens Brussels I Regulation Lugano Convention Banking Law +2 more

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 36 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Public Institution for Social Security (PIFSS)

Appellant/claimant

Banque Pictet & Cie SA

Third Respondent/defendant

Mr Philippe Bertherat

Fourth Respondent/defendant

Mr Kamran Amouzegar

Fifth Respondent/defendant

Pictet & Cie (Europe) SA

Eighth Respondent/defendant

Pictet Bank and Trust Limited

Ninth Respondent/defendant

Bank Pictet & Cie (Asia) Limited

Tenth Respondent/defendant

Mirabaud & Cie SA

Eleventh Respondent/defendant

Mr Pierre Mirabaud

Twelfth Respondent/defendant

Mr Thierry Fauchier-Magnan

Thirteenth Respondent/defendant

Mr Luc Argand

Fourteenth Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Jurisdiction and Forum

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exclusive jurisdiction clauses (EJCs) in banking contracts preclude English court jurisdiction over bribery and accessory claims
  2. 2 Whether Article 23/25 of the Lugano Convention/Brussels I Regulation is satisfied without actual communication of EJCs
  3. 3 Whether wider accessory claims fall within the scope of EJCs

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the exclusive jurisdiction clauses were valid and binding under Article 23/25, even without actual communication, and covered the bribery and accessory claims. The wider accessory claims did not fall within the EJCs but, under Article 6, it was not expedient for the English court to assume jurisdiction, as this would increase the risk of irreconcilable judgments due to overlapping proceedings in Switzerland. England was not the appropriate forum for claims against Pictet Bahamas and Pictet Asia.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant to pay Respondents’ costs of the appeal, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.
  • Claimant to make interim payments on account of Respondents’ costs in specified amounts by 16 February 2022.