Deutsche Bank AG v Comune Di Savona [2018] EWCA Civ 1740 (27 July 2018)

Deutsche Bank AG v Comune Di Savona [2018] EWCA Civ 1740 (27 July 2018)

The English court has jurisdiction to determine the challenged declarations because the swap contracts and ISDA Master Agreement constitute a separate legal relationship governed by English law and the English jurisdiction clause; the entire agreement clause confirms the swaps are self-contained; the declarations...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] EWCA Civ 1740
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Deutsche Bank AG; Defendant/respondent: Comune di Savona
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment Following Appeal From High Court (commercial Court)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; English court has jurisdiction over declarations (7)-(10) and (12).
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Clauses, Interpretation of Contracts, Article 25 Regulation (eu) No. 1215/2012, Declaratory Relief
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Conflict of Laws Jurisdiction Clauses Interpretation of Contracts Article 25 Regulation (eu) No. 1215/2012 Declaratory Relief

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deutsche Bank AG

Claimant/appellant

Comune di Savona

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment Following Appeal From High Court (commercial Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction to determine declarations (7)-(10) and (12) under the ISDA Master Agreement jurisdiction clause
  2. 2 Proper construction and demarcation of competing jurisdiction clauses in separate contracts
  3. 3 Application of Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 to disputes arising from particular legal relationships

Ratio Decidendi

The English court has jurisdiction to determine the challenged declarations because the swap contracts and ISDA Master Agreement constitute a separate legal relationship governed by English law and the English jurisdiction clause; the entire agreement clause confirms the swaps are self-contained; the declarations relate to the swap transactions and fall within the scope of the English jurisdiction clause under Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; English court has jurisdiction over declarations (7)-(10) and (12).

Orders

  • Paragraphs 2, 4, 6 and 7 of the Order of HHJ Waksman QC of 18 May 2017 set aside.
  • Respondent’s application challenging jurisdiction dismissed.