Deutsche Bank AG London Branch v Petromena ASA [2013] EWHC 3065 (Comm) (14 October 2013)

Deutsche Bank AG London Branch v Petromena ASA [2013] EWHC 3065 (Comm) (14 October 2013)

The English court does not have jurisdiction under Article 5.1 because there was no agreement or contractual obligation freely entered into between Deutsche Bank and Petromena; the claims are properly characterised as tortious. Under Article 5.3, the harmful event (the alleged advisory conduct and decisions)...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3065 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Deutsche Bank AG London Branch; First Defendant: Petromena ASA (in bankruptcy, represented by the chairman of the board of directors, Enterprise No. 987 727 713); Second Defendant: Petromena ASA Konkursbo (represented by the Administrator, Enterprise No. 994 922 270)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application (jurisdiction Challenge) / Judgment on Application for Declaration of No Jurisdiction
Outcome
Application dismissed. The English court has jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Under Lugano Convention, Negative Declaratory Relief, Contractual and Tortious Liability, Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses
Private International Law Commercial Law Banking Law Jurisdiction Under Lugano Convention Negative Declaratory Relief Contractual and Tortious Liability Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses

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 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deutsche Bank AG London Branch

Claimant

Petromena ASA (in bankruptcy, represented by the chairman of the board of directors, Enterprise No. 987 727 713)

First Defendant

Petromena ASA Konkursbo (represented by the Administrator, Enterprise No. 994 922 270)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application (jurisdiction Challenge) / Judgment on Application for Declaration of No Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction under Article 5 or Article 23 of the Lugano Convention over claims brought by Petromena against Deutsche Bank AG in Norway
  2. 2 Whether Petromena's claims are contractual or tortious for the purposes of the Convention
  3. 3 Whether the exclusive Norwegian jurisdiction clause in the Loan Agreement applies

Ratio Decidendi

The English court does not have jurisdiction under Article 5.1 because there was no agreement or contractual obligation freely entered into between Deutsche Bank and Petromena; the claims are properly characterised as tortious. Under Article 5.3, the harmful event (the alleged advisory conduct and decisions) originated in England, where Deutsche Bank's relevant employees were based and acted, thus conferring jurisdiction on the English court. The Norwegian exclusive jurisdiction clause in the Loan Agreement does not apply because the claims do not arise out of or in connection with the Loan Agreement but from alleged advisory duties assumed independently by Deutsche Bank.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. The English court has jurisdiction.

Orders

  • The application by Petromena ASA for a declaration that the English court has no jurisdiction is dismissed.
  • The proceedings in England may continue.