Nomura International Plc v Banca Monte Dei Paschi Di Siena SpA [2013] EWHC 3187 (Comm) (24 October 2013)

Nomura International Plc v Banca Monte Dei Paschi Di Siena SpA [2013] EWHC 3187 (Comm) (24 October 2013)

The existence of an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the English court does not, of itself, prevent proceedings commenced in England from being related to proceedings in Italy for the purposes of Article 28(3). The focus of Article 28(3) is on expediency, not capability. The English and Italian proceedings...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3187 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Nomura International PLC; Defendant/applicant: Banca Monte Dei Paschi Di Siena SpA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Application for Stay Under Article 28(1) of Council Regulation (ec) 44/2001
Outcome
Application for stay refused; English proceedings to continue.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Clauses, Stay of Proceedings, Related Actions Under Brussels Regulation, Declaratory Relief, Conflict of Laws
Private International Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction Clauses Stay of Proceedings Related Actions Under Brussels Regulation Declaratory Relief Conflict of Laws

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nomura International PLC

Claimant/respondent

Banca Monte Dei Paschi Di Siena SpA

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Application for Stay Under Article 28(1) of Council Regulation (ec) 44/2001

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are the English proceedings and the Italian proceedings 'related actions' under Article 28(3) of Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001?
  2. 2 Should the English court exercise its discretion to stay proceedings under Article 28(1)?
  3. 3 Effect of exclusive and non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses on related actions and expediency of hearing together

Ratio Decidendi

The existence of an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the English court does not, of itself, prevent proceedings commenced in England from being related to proceedings in Italy for the purposes of Article 28(3). The focus of Article 28(3) is on expediency, not capability. The English and Italian proceedings are sufficiently closely connected to be considered related actions, but the risk of irreconcilable judgments is not sufficient to warrant a stay. The English court retains discretion and declines to stay the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Application for stay refused; English proceedings to continue.

Orders

  • BMPS's application for a stay under Article 28(1) is dismissed.
  • Nomura's claim for declaratory relief may proceed in the English court.