Grovit v De Nederlandsche Bank & Ors [2005] EWHC 2944 (QB) (20 December 2005)

Grovit v De Nederlandsche Bank & Ors [2005] EWHC 2944 (QB) (20 December 2005)

The acts complained of were done by the Bank and its employees in the exercise of sovereign authority as part of their statutory supervisory functions. The Bank is a separate entity entitled to immunity ratione materiae under s.14(2) of the State Immunity Act 1978. The Judgments Regulation does not override state immunity, and Article 6 ECHR does not preclude it in these circumstances. Allegations of malice do not remove the acts from the scope of sovereign authority for immunity purposes.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 2944 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Grovit; Defendant: De Nederlandsche Bank
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Application for Declaration of No Jurisdiction Based on State Immunity
Outcome
Application granted; claim struck out for want of jurisdiction due to state immunity.
Legal Topics
State Immunity, Jurisdiction, Defamation (libel), European Union Law, Human Rights (article 6 Echr)
Private International Law Defamation Public International Law State Immunity Jurisdiction Defamation (libel) European Union Law Human Rights (article 6 Echr)

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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grovit

Claimant

De Nederlandsche Bank

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Application for Declaration of No Jurisdiction Based on State Immunity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over a libel claim against a foreign central bank and its employees for acts done in the exercise of sovereign authority
  2. 2 Whether the defendants are entitled to state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978 and/or at common law
  3. 3 Whether the Judgments Regulation (EC 44/2001) precludes a plea of state immunity

Ratio Decidendi

The acts complained of were done by the Bank and its employees in the exercise of sovereign authority as part of their statutory supervisory functions. The Bank is a separate entity entitled to immunity ratione materiae under s.14(2) of the State Immunity Act 1978. The Judgments Regulation does not override state immunity, and Article 6 ECHR does not preclude it in these circumstances. Allegations of malice do not remove the acts from the scope of sovereign authority for immunity purposes.

Court Disposition

Application granted; claim struck out for want of jurisdiction due to state immunity.

Orders

  • Declaration that the court has no jurisdiction over the claim against all defendants on grounds of state immunity
  • Strike out of the proceedings