Crane Bank Ltd & Ors v DFCU Bank Ltd & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 886 (26 July 2023)

Crane Bank Ltd & Ors v DFCU Bank Ltd & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 886 (26 July 2023)

The Court of Appeal held that it is at least arguable that the sale of CBL's assets by the Bank of Uganda as receiver was a commercial act falling within the Commercial Activity Exception to the foreign act of state rule, and thus the claims should not have been struck out for want of jurisdiction. The court rejected the applicability of the Kirkpatrick Exception and found the Public Policy Exception not engaged on the facts. The appeal was allowed on the Commercial Activity Exception ground, and the jurisdiction challenge was dismissed.

Citation
[2023] EWCA Civ 886
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Crane Bank Limited; Appellant/claimant: Sudhir Ruparelia; Appellant/claimant: Jyotsna Ruparelia; Appellant/claimant: Meera Ruparelia; Appellant/claimant: Rajiv Ruparelia; Appellant/claimant: Tom Mugenga; Appellant/claimant: Sheena Ruparelia; Respondent/defendant: DFCU Bank Limited; Respondent/defendant: DFCU Limited; Respondent/defendant: Jimmy Mugerwa; Respondent/defendant: Juma Kisaame; Respondent/defendant: William Sekabembe; Defendant: CDC Group PLC; Defendant: Norfinance AS; Defendant: Rabo Partnerships B. V.; Defendant: Arise BV; Defendant: Stephen Caley; Defendant: Michael Alan Turner; Defendant: Albert Jonkergouw; Defendant: Willem Cramer; Defendant: Ola Rinnan; Defendant: Deepak Malik
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Jurisdiction (foreign Act of State Rule)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; jurisdiction challenge dismissed; claims may proceed.
Legal Topics
Foreign Act of State Doctrine, Jurisdiction, Public Policy Exception, Commercial Activity Exception, Conspiracy to Injure by Unlawful Means, Dishonest Assistance, Knowing Receipt, Bribery and Corruption, Human Rights (article 6 Echr)
Private International Law Commercial Law Banking Law Tort Law Foreign Act of State Doctrine Jurisdiction Public Policy Exception Commercial Activity Exception +5 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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crane Bank Limited

Appellant/claimant

Sudhir Ruparelia

Appellant/claimant

Jyotsna Ruparelia

Appellant/claimant

Meera Ruparelia

Appellant/claimant

Rajiv Ruparelia

Appellant/claimant

Tom Mugenga

Appellant/claimant

Sheena Ruparelia

Appellant/claimant

DFCU Bank Limited

Respondent/defendant

DFCU Limited

Respondent/defendant

Jimmy Mugerwa

Respondent/defendant

Juma Kisaame

Respondent/defendant

William Sekabembe

Respondent/defendant

CDC Group PLC

Defendant

Norfinance AS

Defendant

Rabo Partnerships B. V.

Defendant

Arise BV

Defendant

Stephen Caley

Defendant

Michael Alan Turner

Defendant

Albert Jonkergouw

Defendant

Willem Cramer

Defendant

Ola Rinnan

Defendant

Deepak Malik

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Jurisdiction (foreign Act of State Rule)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the foreign act of state rule bar the English court from adjudicating on claims arising from alleged corrupt acts by Ugandan officials and the Bank of Uganda in relation to the takeover and sale of Crane Bank Limited?
  2. 2 Do the Commercial Activity Exception, Public Policy Exception, or Kirkpatrick Exception apply to permit the claims to proceed?
  3. 3 Is the scope of the foreign act of state doctrine and its exceptions sufficiently unsettled to preclude summary determination?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that it is at least arguable that the sale of CBL's assets by the Bank of Uganda as receiver was a commercial act falling within the Commercial Activity Exception to the foreign act of state rule, and thus the claims should not have been struck out for want of jurisdiction. The court rejected the applicability of the Kirkpatrick Exception and found the Public Policy Exception not engaged on the facts. The appeal was allowed on the Commercial Activity Exception ground, and the jurisdiction challenge was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; jurisdiction challenge dismissed; claims may proceed.

Orders

  • Order of the High Court setting aside service and declining jurisdiction is set aside.
  • The claims against the respondents are not barred by the foreign act of state rule on the Commercial Activity Exception ground.