Deutsche Bank AG v Comune Di Savona [2017] EWHC 1013 (Comm) (05 May 2017)

Deutsche Bank AG v Comune Di Savona [2017] EWHC 1013 (Comm) (05 May 2017)

The declarations in issue (7)-(10) and (12) sought by Deutsche Bank relate to advisory obligations arising under the Convention, which contains an exclusive Italian jurisdiction clause. Italian law, supported by expert evidence and Supreme Court authority, holds that such claims fall within the Italian clause. The English clause in the ISDA Master Agreement does not extend to disputes about advisory duties or extra-contractual liability arising from the Convention. Therefore, the English Court lacks jurisdiction over these declarations. The application to strike out these parts of the claim succeeds. The application for a stay is refused as unnecessary.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1013 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Deutsche Bank AG; Defendant/applicant: Comune di Savona
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application (jurisdictional Challenge and Stay) / Interlocutory Application (strike Out and Stay Pending Appeal)
Outcome
Application granted in part; declarations (7)-(10) and (12) struck out for want of jurisdiction; application for stay refused.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Clauses, Negative Declaratory Relief, Derivative Transactions, Conflict of Laws, Interpretation of Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses, Financial Services Regulation
Private International Law Banking and Finance Contract Law Jurisdiction Clauses Negative Declaratory Relief Derivative Transactions Conflict of Laws Interpretation of Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses +1 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deutsche Bank AG

Claimant/respondent

Comune di Savona

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application (jurisdictional Challenge and Stay) / Interlocutory Application (strike Out and Stay Pending Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English or Italian exclusive jurisdiction clause governs disputes relating to advisory obligations and negative declarations sought by Deutsche Bank
  2. 2 Whether the English Court has jurisdiction over declarations (7)-(10) and (12) sought by Deutsche Bank
  3. 3 Whether proceedings should be stayed pending the Court of Appeal decision in Dexia Crediop v Comune di Prato

Ratio Decidendi

The declarations in issue (7)-(10) and (12) sought by Deutsche Bank relate to advisory obligations arising under the Convention, which contains an exclusive Italian jurisdiction clause. Italian law, supported by expert evidence and Supreme Court authority, holds that such claims fall within the Italian clause. The English clause in the ISDA Master Agreement does not extend to disputes about advisory duties or extra-contractual liability arising from the Convention. Therefore, the English Court lacks jurisdiction over these declarations. The application to strike out these parts of the claim succeeds. The application for a stay is refused as unnecessary.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; declarations (7)-(10) and (12) struck out for want of jurisdiction; application for stay refused.

Orders

  • Declarations (7)-(10) and (12) in the claim are struck out for want of jurisdiction.
  • The application for a stay of the balance of proceedings is refused.