Feed aggregator

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Lyon, chambre de l'instruction, 15 janvier 2016

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Colmar, Chambre des appels correctionnels, 11 juin 2015

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Nîmes, 3e chambre des appels correctionnels, 7 juillet 2015

Non renvoyée au Conseil constitutionnel

Barclays v ENPAM has been travelling in my briefcase for some time – apologies. Reminiscent of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Alexandros, and the High Court in Nomura , Blair J in October 2015 employed national courts’ room under Article 27/28 of the Brussels I Regulation (the lis alibi pendens and related actions rules) to refuse a stay of English proceedings in favour of proceedings in (of course) Italy. Litigation like this will be somewhat less likely now that the Brussels I Recast applies. As readers will be aware, the current version of the Regulation has means to protect choice of court agreements against unwilling partners (see however below).

Claimant, Barclays Bank PLC, is an English bank. The defendant, Ente Nazionale di Previdenza ed Assistenza dei Medici e Degli Odontoiatri (“ENPAM”) is an Italian pension fund. A dispute has arisen between them as to a transaction entered into by way of a Conditional Asset Exchange Letter from ENPAM to Barclays dated 21 September 2007 by which ENPAM exchanged fund assets for securities which were in the form of credit-linked notes called the “Ferras CDO securities”. ENPAM’s claim is that it incurred a major loss in the transaction, and that it is entitled in law to look to Barclays to make that loss good.

On 18 May 2015, Barclays issued a summary judgment application on the basis that there is no defence to its claim that the Milan proceedings fall within contractual provisions giving exclusive jurisdiction to the English courts. ENPAM began proceedings against Barclays and others in Milan on 23 June 2014. Barclays says that this was in breach of provisions in the contractual documentation giving exclusive jurisdiction to the English courts. It issued the proceedings reviewed here seeking a declaration to that effect and other relief on 15 September 2014. On 20 April 2015, ENPAM applied pursuant to Article 27 or Article 28 of the Brussels I Regulation for an order that the English court should not exercise its jurisdiction in these proceedings on the basis that Milan court was first seised.

The High Court refused. Reference is best made to the judgment itself, for it is very well drafted. Read together with e.g. the aforementioned Alexandros and Nomura judgments, it gives one a complete view of the approach of the English courts viz lis pendens under the Regulation. (E.g. Blair J has excellent overview of the principles of Article 27 (Article 29 in the Recast) under para 68).

Discussion of what exactly Barclays could recover from the English cq Italian proceedings, was an important consideration of whether these two proceedings were each other’s mirror image. (see e.g. para 82 ff). This is quite an important consideration for litigators. Statements of claims are an important input in the lis pendens analysis. Be careful therefore what you ask for. Restraint in the statement of claims might well serve you very well when opposed with recalcitrant opposing parties, wishing to torpedo your proceedings. (Let’s face it: the likelihood of such opposition is quite high in a litigious context).

Finally, it is often assumed that precedent value of the case discussed here and other cases with it, has diminished drastically following the Brussels I Recast. It instructs all courts not named in a choice of court agreement, to step back from jurisdiction in favour of the court named (Article 31(2)). Yet what is and what is not caught by a choice of court agreement (starting with the issue of non-contractual liability between the parties) depends very much on its wording and interpretation. Article 31(2) is not the be all and end all of litigation between contracting parties.

Geert.

Le champ d’application de l’article 6, point 2, du règlement Bruxelles I s’étend à une action qu’un tiers a introduite, conformément aux dispositions de la législation nationale, contre le défendeur à la procédure originaire et ayant pour objet une demande étroitement liée à cette demande originaire, visant à obtenir le remboursement d’indemnités versées par ce tiers au demandeur à ladite procédure originaire, à la condition que cette action n’ait pas été formée que pour traduire ledit défendeur hors de son tribunal.

En carrousel matière:  Oui Matières OASIS:  Procédure civile - Principe directeurs

en lire plus

Dès qu’un État membre accorde aux détenus un accès à internet, toute restriction à ce droit doit être précisément motivée pour respecter l’article 10 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme.

En carrousel matière:  Oui Matières OASIS:  Convention européenne des droits de l'Homme Peine

en lire plus

Prescription civile - Conflit de juridictions