Merrill Lynch v Commune Di Verona [2012] EWHC 1407 (Comm) (22 May 2012)

Merrill Lynch v Commune Di Verona [2012] EWHC 1407 (Comm) (22 May 2012)

There was a real and present dispute due to threats of proceedings in Italy and media statements; the claimants had a legitimate commercial interest in declaratory relief; the declarations sought (1-11) reflected the representations and terms of the transactions and were justified, but declarations of non-liability (12-13) could not be granted in the absence of evidence.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1407 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Merrill Lynch International Bank Limited and Merrill Lynch International; Defendant: Comune Di Verona
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Action for Declaratory Relief / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Declarations 1 to 11 granted; declarations 12 and 13 refused.
Legal Topics
Declaratory Relief, Interest Rate Swaps, Jurisdiction Clauses, Contractual Estoppel
Commercial Law Contract Law Banking and Finance Declaratory Relief Interest Rate Swaps Jurisdiction Clauses Contractual Estoppel

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Merrill Lynch International Bank Limited and Merrill Lynch International

Claimant

Comune Di Verona

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Action for Declaratory Relief / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim discloses a cause of action
  2. 2 Whether there is a real and present dispute between the parties
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant declaratory relief

Ratio Decidendi

There was a real and present dispute due to threats of proceedings in Italy and media statements; the claimants had a legitimate commercial interest in declaratory relief; the declarations sought (1-11) reflected the representations and terms of the transactions and were justified, but declarations of non-liability (12-13) could not be granted in the absence of evidence.

Court Disposition

Declarations 1 to 11 granted; declarations 12 and 13 refused.

Orders

  • Declarations 1 to 11 in the draft order are granted, reflecting the representations and terms of the transactions.
  • Declarations 12 and 13 (broad non-liability) are refused.