Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
JASBIR DHILLON QC, FRED HOBSON and TOM WOOD (instructed by Pinsent Masons LLP) for the Claimants RAYMOND COX QC, SIMON PAUL and MARCUS FIELD (instructed by Osborne Clarke LLP) for the Defendant Hearing date: 27 June 2022 ____________________
i) The claims under the ISDA Master Agreement proceed on the basis that if the court finds Venice did not have authority or capacity to enter into the Swaps, the Banks will then be entitled to serve Notice of Early Termination under the Swaps and recover certain sums as (in effect) a debt claim.
ii) The other contractual claims seek damages on the basis that Venice is obliged to place the Banks in the position they would have been had the Swaps been valid and binding.
iii) The tortious claims plead that the Banks entered into the Swaps in reliance on various representations made by Venice, that the Banks would not have entered into the Swaps but for the misrepresentation, or but for a breach of duty on Venice's part to provide the Banks with certain information. On that basis, various heads of reliance expenditure are claimed as damages.
iv) The indemnity claim seeks an indemnity against all losses and liabilities incurred by the Banks in connection with the Swaps.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
[2026] EWHC Comm 259
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.