Deutsche Bank AG London Branch v Petromena ASA

Deutsche Bank AG London Branch v Petromena ASA

Petromena's claims are properly characterised as tort/delict for the purposes of the Lugano Convention, not as matters relating to a contract. The harmful events giving rise to the alleged damage originated in England, where DB London operated and made relevant decisions. The exclusive Norwegian jurisdiction clause in the Loan Agreement does not apply, as the claims do not arise out of or in connection with that agreement. Accordingly, the English court has jurisdiction under Article 5.3 of the Lugano Convention.

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 / Ruling on Jurisdictional Challenge
Outcome
Application dismissed; English court retains jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Under Lugano Convention, Negative Declaratory Relief, Contract Vs Tort Characterisation, Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses
Private International Law Commercial Law Jurisdiction Under Lugano Convention Negative Declaratory Relief Contract Vs Tort Characterisation Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses

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 21 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 / Ruling on Jurisdictional Challenge

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

Petromena's claims are properly characterised as tort/delict for the purposes of the Lugano Convention, not as matters relating to a contract. The harmful events giving rise to the alleged damage originated in England, where DB London operated and made relevant decisions. The exclusive Norwegian jurisdiction clause in the Loan Agreement does not apply, as the claims do not arise out of or in connection with that agreement. Accordingly, the English court has jurisdiction under Article 5.3 of the Lugano Convention.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; English court retains jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Petromena's application for a declaration that the English court has no jurisdiction is dismissed.