ABCI v Banque Franco-Tunisienne & Ors

ABCI v Banque Franco-Tunisienne & Ors

The English court had no jurisdiction over the respondents in the Settlement Agreements and Conspiracy actions because the claims were not properly brought to affect a contract made within the jurisdiction, and there was no good arguable case as to the authenticity of the contractual documents. Service on the MOF was invalid under the State Immunity Act 1978. The orders for indemnity costs and separate representation were justified, but the interest rate on costs should be varied to 1% over base rate.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: ABCI (formerly Arab Business Consortium International Finance & Investment Company); Respondent/defendant: Banque Franco-Tunisienne (BFT); Respondent/defendant: Société Tunisienne de Banque (STB); Respondent/defendant: Banque Centrale de Tunisie (BCT); Respondent/defendant: Le Directeur Général du Contentieux de l’Etat Tunisienne (MOF)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Commercial Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed except as to interest on costs
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Service Out of Jurisdiction, State Immunity, Costs, Contract Formation, Duress, Fraud, Conspiracy
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Conflict of Laws Jurisdiction Service Out of Jurisdiction State Immunity Costs Contract Formation +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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ABCI (formerly Arab Business Consortium International Finance & Investment Company)

Appellant/claimant

Banque Franco-Tunisienne (BFT)

Respondent/defendant

Société Tunisienne de Banque (STB)

Respondent/defendant

Banque Centrale de Tunisie (BCT)

Respondent/defendant

Le Directeur Général du Contentieux de l’Etat Tunisienne (MOF)

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Commercial Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the English court had jurisdiction over the respondents in the Settlement Agreements and Conspiracy actions
  2. 2 Whether service on the MOF complied with the State Immunity Act 1978
  3. 3 Whether the claims were properly brought to affect a contract made within the jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

The English court had no jurisdiction over the respondents in the Settlement Agreements and Conspiracy actions because the claims were not properly brought to affect a contract made within the jurisdiction, and there was no good arguable case as to the authenticity of the contractual documents. Service on the MOF was invalid under the State Immunity Act 1978. The orders for indemnity costs and separate representation were justified, but the interest rate on costs should be varied to 1% over base rate.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed except as to interest on costs

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed except for judge’s order for interest on costs, which is varied to 1% over base rate.
  • Costs to be assessed on the standard basis and paid within 56 days.