Commercial Court allows US$11m stakeholder application in banking dispute

18/07/25

The Commercial Court has given judgment in a dispute between S.P. Hinduja Banque Privée SA (“Hinduja Banque”), Bank of Baroda (“Baroda”) and Amas Ltd (“Amas”), holding that both Hinduja Banque and Amas have arguable claims against Baroda to a sum of just over US$11m held on deposit with Baroda (the “Deposit”) and Baroda should be permitted to pay the Deposit into Court so that the claims may be tried as between Hinduja Banque and Amas.

Hinduja Banque had placed a c.$31m sum on deposit with Baroda in 2013, pursuant to a Memorandum of Deposit (the “Memorandum”) [8]. In doing so, it was acting as a “mandatee” under Art.394 of the Swiss Code of Obligations for Amas (in English terms, an agent [11]), under a Fiduciary Agreement between itself and Amas. It was not in dispute that the Deposit ultimately had to be repaid to Amas.

The remaining Deposit became due in 2024. Hinduja Banque asserted a right to be repaid under the Memorandum. Amas asserted that it had claims in respect of the Deposit. Hinduja Banque maintained that its stance was driven by KYC concerns as a matter of Swiss law, whilst Amas asserted that it resulted from a rift in the Hinduja family in which Hinduja Banque was on one side and Amas the other [16]. Hinduja Banque commenced proceedings against Baroda and applied for summary judgment against it [14]. This led Baroda to make a stakeholder application under CPR Part 86 (formerly known as “interpleader relief”) seeking to pay the Deposit into Court and be released from proceedings.

Amas asserted that it had two “competing claims” for the purpose of CPR Part 86 against Baroda:

• A claim on the basis that the debt had been (or ought to be) assigned to it by Hinduja Banque, such that it was entitled to claim the debt against Baroda.
• A claim against Baroda in dishonest assistance, on the basis that causing payment directly to itself rather than to Amas would breach Hinduja Banque’s Swiss law fiduciary obligations to Amas.

The Judge conducted a detailed consideration of the requirements for a “competing claim” [21]-[24]. He held that (i) Amas’s claimed assignment, which depended on the construction of Article 5 of the Fiduciary Agreement [28], was arguable; (ii) even if the jurisdiction clause in Hinduja Banque’s standard terms was effective, it was irrelevant to whether the Court could grant the stakeholder application, because of the nature of stakeholder relief [29]; (iii) although the accessory liability claim was “more difficult”, it was arguable [34]. Even if the jurisdiction clause were effective, it did not provide a discretionary reason not to order a trial of the issues in England, because what was being resolved under Part 86 was the rival claims against Baroda, not a claim between Amas and Hinduja Banque [39].     

The judgement can be read here.