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 Bank and its employees are entitled to state immunity under s.14(2) of the State Immunity Act 1978 because the acts complained of were done in the exercise of sovereign authority; the Judgments Regulation does not override state immunity; allegations of malice do not remove immunity; and Article 6 ECHR does not preclude the application of state immunity in these circumstances.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 2944
Parties
Claimant: Grovit; Defendant: De Nederlandsche Bank
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil (libel) / Jurisdictional Challenge (application for Declaration of State Immunity and Strike Out/stay)
Outcome
Application for declaration of state immunity and strike out/stay granted; proceedings dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
State Immunity, Jurisdiction Under Council Regulation (ec) No 44/2001, Defamation/libel, Qualified Privilege, Article 6 ECHR (right to Fair Trial)
Private International Law Defamation Public International Law Human Rights State Immunity Jurisdiction Under Council Regulation (ec) No 44/2001 Defamation/libel Qualified Privilege +1 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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grovit

Claimant

De Nederlandsche Bank

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (libel) / Jurisdictional Challenge (application for Declaration of State Immunity and Strike Out/stay)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether De Nederlandsche Bank and its employees are entitled to state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978 and/or at common law in respect of a libel claim brought in England
  2. 2 Whether the Judgments Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 precludes reliance on state immunity
  3. 3 Whether the acts complained of were done in the exercise of sovereign authority (jure imperii)

Ratio Decidendi

The Bank and its employees are entitled to state immunity under s.14(2) of the State Immunity Act 1978 because the acts complained of were done in the exercise of sovereign authority; the Judgments Regulation does not override state immunity; allegations of malice do not remove immunity; and Article 6 ECHR does not preclude the application of state immunity in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application for declaration of state immunity and strike out/stay granted; proceedings dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Orders

  • Declaration that the court has no jurisdiction due to state immunity
  • Strike out or stay of proceedings against all defendants