The claimants sought damages in defamation in respect of a letter faxed by the first defendant to the other defendants in London. The first defendant said that it had state immunity, and the other claimed similar benefits acting as the bank’s employees. The claimant now appealed against his action being struck out for lack of jurisdiction.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The Bank and its employees, the second and third defendants, were exercising public law powers. They were performing the role of an administrative authority carrying out governmental supervisory functions which had been delegated to the Bank by the Dutch Government to protect the integrity of the financial system in the Netherlands. The fact that incidentally the letter contained libellous material did not deprive it of its essentially public law character.
Judges:
May LJ, Dyson LJ, Jacob LJ
Citations:
[2007] EWCA Civ 953, [2008] 1 WLR 51, [2008] 1 All ER (Comm) 106, [2008] ILPr 19
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Sonntag v Waidmann, Waidmann and Waidmann ECJ 21-Apr-1993
Europa 1. A claim for compensation for loss to an individual resulting from a criminal offence, even though made in the context of criminal proceedings, is civil in nature unless the person against whom it is . .
Cited – Lechouritou and Others v Federal Republic of Germany (Judgments Convention / Enforcement Of Judgments) ECJ 15-Feb-2007
Europa Brussels Convention ‘ First sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1’ Scope ‘Civil and commercial matters’ Meaning ‘Action for compensation brought in a Contracting State, by the successors of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation, Jurisdiction
Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.341666
