Dexia Crediop S.P.A. v Comune Di Prato

Dexia Crediop S.P.A. v Comune Di Prato

Dexia's restitution claim succeeds under English law because neither party pleaded that Italian law governed the claim, and the general rule is that foreign law must be pleaded. The claim is not time-barred as the cause of action accrued only when Prato exercised its right to treat the swaps as void. The change of position defence fails as Prato did not show a causal link between receipt and expenditure. Prato's restitution counterclaim succeeds under Italian law, which governs the obligation to restore benefits received under a void contract, as Italy is the country with the closest and most real connection. Prato's regulatory counterclaim fails except for Dexia's breach of the...

Parties
Claimant: Dexia Crediop S.p.A.; Defendant: Comune di Prato
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Civil 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 breach of right of withdrawal (no damages); set-off applies; net sum payable by Dexia to Prato.
Legal Topics
Restitution for Invalid Contracts, Choice of Law in Restitution, Mandatory Rules Under Rome Convention, Financial Services Regulatory Breaches, Change of Position Defence, Limitation in Restitution, Disclosure Obligations in Swaps, Set Off of Cross Claims
Contract Law Private International Law Financial Services Regulation Restitution Civil Procedure Restitution for Invalid Contracts Choice of Law in Restitution Mandatory Rules Under Rome Convention +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 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dexia Crediop S.p.A.

Claimant

Comune di Prato

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Civil 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 and whether it succeeds
  2. 2 Whether Prato's restitution counterclaim is governed by Italian law and whether it succeeds
  3. 3 Whether Prato's regulatory counterclaim for damages for breach of Italian financial services law succeeds

Ratio Decidendi

Dexia's restitution claim succeeds under English law because neither party pleaded that Italian law governed the claim, and the general rule is that foreign law must be pleaded. The claim is not time-barred as the cause of action accrued only when Prato exercised its right to treat the swaps as void. The change of position defence fails as Prato did not show a causal link between receipt and expenditure. Prato's restitution counterclaim succeeds under Italian law, which governs the obligation to restore benefits received under a void contract, as Italy is the country with the closest and most real connection. Prato's regulatory counterclaim fails except for Dexia's breach of the...

Court Disposition

Dexia's restitution claim succeeds; Prato's restitution counterclaim succeeds; Prato's regulatory counterclaim fails except for breach of right of withdrawal (no damages); set-off applies; net sum payable by Dexia to Prato.

Orders

  • Dexia to pay Prato the net sum after set-off of restitution claims, subject to calculation and agreement by the parties.
  • No damages awarded to Prato for regulatory counterclaim as no loss caused by breach.