BNP Paribas SA v Trattamento Rifiuti Metropolitani SPA (Rev 1)

BNP Paribas SA v Trattamento Rifiuti Metropolitani SPA (Rev 1)

The declarations sought by BNPP fall within the English jurisdiction clause in the ISDA Master Agreement, as they relate to the Swap, a separate legal relationship from the Financing Agreement. The Italian jurisdiction clause governs disputes under the Financing Agreement, not the Swap. There is no conflict between the clauses, so the Conflicts Provision is not engaged. The High Court was correct to find that the claims must be heard in England under Article 25 of the Regulation.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: BNP Paribas S.A.; Defendant/appellant: Trattamento Rifiuti Metropolitani S.P.A.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Jurisdiction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Clauses, Interpretation of Contracts, Article 25 Brussels Regulation, ISDA Master Agreement, Negative Declaratory Relief
Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Banking and Finance Jurisdiction Clauses Interpretation of Contracts Article 25 Brussels Regulation ISDA Master Agreement Negative Declaratory Relief

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BNP Paribas S.A.

Claimant/respondent

Trattamento Rifiuti Metropolitani S.P.A.

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claims for declaratory relief fall within the English jurisdiction clause in the ISDA Master Agreement or the Italian jurisdiction clause in the Financing Agreement
  2. 2 Proper construction of competing jurisdiction clauses in related contracts
  3. 3 Application of Article 25 of Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012

Ratio Decidendi

The declarations sought by BNPP fall within the English jurisdiction clause in the ISDA Master Agreement, as they relate to the Swap, a separate legal relationship from the Financing Agreement. The Italian jurisdiction clause governs disputes under the Financing Agreement, not the Swap. There is no conflict between the clauses, so the Conflicts Provision is not engaged. The High Court was correct to find that the claims must be heard in England under Article 25 of the Regulation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • TRM's application to dismiss for want of jurisdiction is refused
  • Declarations sought by BNPP fall within the English jurisdiction clause, subject to minor amendments to declaration (g) as specified in the judgment