Grovit v De Nederlandsche Bank & Ors

Grovit v De Nederlandsche Bank & Ors

The Defendants, as a separate entity and employees acting in exercise of sovereign authority, are entitled to state immunity 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 protection of state immunity.

Parties
Claimant: Stefan Grovit; Defendant: De Nederlandsche Bank; Defendant: Second Defendant (Head of Money Transaction and Trust Office Department); Defendant: Third Defendant (Supervisor in Money Transaction and Trust Office Department)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil (libel/defamation) / Jurisdictional Challenge (application for Declaration of No Jurisdiction Based on State Immunity)
Outcome
Application for declaration of no jurisdiction granted; proceedings struck out on grounds of state immunity.
Legal Topics
State Immunity Act 1978, Council Regulation (ec) No 44/2001, Jurisdiction, Qualified Privilege, Article 6 ECHR, Sovereign Authority, Civil Procedure
Private International Law Defamation State Immunity Human Rights State Immunity Act 1978 Council Regulation (ec) No 44/2001 Jurisdiction Qualified Privilege +3 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 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stefan Grovit

Claimant

De Nederlandsche Bank

Defendant

Second Defendant (Head of Money Transaction and Trust Office Department)

Defendant

Third Defendant (Supervisor in Money Transaction and Trust Office Department)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (libel/defamation) / Jurisdictional Challenge (application for Declaration of No Jurisdiction Based on State Immunity)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court has jurisdiction over the Defendants given the claim of state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978 and/or common law
  2. 2 Whether the acts complained of were done in exercise of sovereign authority (ratione materiae)
  3. 3 Whether the Judgments Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 precludes a plea of state immunity

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants, as a separate entity and employees acting in exercise of sovereign authority, are entitled to state immunity 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 protection of state immunity.

Court Disposition

Application for declaration of no jurisdiction granted; proceedings struck out on grounds of state immunity.

Orders

  • The claim for state immunity made on behalf of each of the three Defendants in all three actions succeeds.
  • The proceedings are struck out for want of jurisdiction.