Dexia Crediop S.P.A. v Comune Di Prato [2016] EWHC 2824 (Comm) (10 November 2016)

Dexia Crediop S.P.A. v Comune Di Prato [2016] EWHC 2824 (Comm) (10 November 2016)

Dexia's restitution claim is governed by English law because neither party pleaded that Italian law applied. The claim is not time-barred as the cause of action accrued only when Prato exercised its right under article 30.7 TUF. Prato's change of position defence fails as there is no evidence of a causal link between receipt and expenditure beyond ordinary expenses. Prato's restitution counterclaim succeeds under Italian law. Prato's regulatory counterclaim fails except for one breach, which caused no loss. Set-off applies, likely resulting in a net payment by Dexia to Prato.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 2824 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Dexia Crediop S.p. A.; Defendant: Comune di Prato
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim / Judgment on Remaining Issues After Main Claim Judgment
Outcome
Dexia's restitution claim succeeds; Prato's restitution counterclaim succeeds; Prato's regulatory counterclaim fails except for one breach with no damages; set-off applies, likely resulting in a net sum payable by Dexia to Prato.
Legal Topics
Restitution for Invalid Contracts, Limitation Periods, Change of Position Defence, Choice of Law, Financial Regulation, Local Government Contracts, Set Off, Counterclaims
Commercial Law Conflict of Laws Restitution Financial Services Law Restitution for Invalid Contracts Limitation Periods Change of Position Defence Choice of Law +4 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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dexia Crediop S.p. A.

Claimant

Comune di Prato

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim / Judgment on Remaining Issues After Main Claim Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dexia's restitution claim is governed by English or Italian law
  2. 2 Whether the restitution claim is time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980
  3. 3 Whether Prato has a valid change of position defence to restitution

Ratio Decidendi

Dexia's restitution claim is governed by English law because neither party pleaded that Italian law applied. The claim is not time-barred as the cause of action accrued only when Prato exercised its right under article 30.7 TUF. Prato's change of position defence fails as there is no evidence of a causal link between receipt and expenditure beyond ordinary expenses. Prato's restitution counterclaim succeeds under Italian law. Prato's regulatory counterclaim fails except for one breach, which caused no loss. Set-off applies, likely resulting in a net payment by Dexia to Prato.

Court Disposition

Dexia's restitution claim succeeds; Prato's restitution counterclaim succeeds; Prato's regulatory counterclaim fails except for one breach with no damages; set-off applies, likely resulting in a net sum payable by Dexia to Prato.

Orders

  • Dexia to pay Prato the net sum after set-off of restitution claims.
  • No damages awarded to Prato on regulatory counterclaim.