Key takeaways
Court rejects good faith defence in property deal
Judgment highlights strict standards for contractual honesty.
Evidence of misconduct undermines investor protections
Findings show how actions can negate agreed safeguards.
Complex cross-border disputes demand early legal strategy
Proactive planning helps manage reputational and financial risk.
English court refuses to find that Vatican financier Mincione acted in ‘good faith’
Hill Dickinson represents Defendant
The High Court of England & Wales (Robin Knowles J) has today delivered its decision in the legal proceedings brought by Mr Raffaele Mincione (Mr Mincione) and his companies against the Secretariat of State of the Holy See (Secretariat).
The Secretariat’s legal team comprised Paul Walsh (Partner) and Jon Scally (Legal Director) of Hill Dickinson LLP along with Charles Hollander KC of Brick Court Chambers, Samar Abbas Kasmi of Atkin Chambers James Bradford of XXIV Old Buildings and Jagoda Klimowicz of Brick Court Chambers.
Background
Mr Mincione, who had brought these proceedings (along with his companies) in June 2020, asked the English Court to grant a number of declarations against the Secretariat relating to a series of contracts that were entered into across November – December 2018 by which the Secretariat had sought to acquire the entirety of a property located at 60 Sloane Avenue, London.
Significantly, the Claimants sought a number of declarations that they had acted in good faith in negotiating and executing these contracts with the Secretariat against the backdrop of a criminal investigation in the Vatican.
Judgment
In a significant 50-page judgment delivered by the High Court on 21 February 2025, the Judge refused to grant the declarations of good faith and found, amongst other things, that Mr Mincione had made misleading statements to the Secretariat as to the value of the Sloane Avenue property. The judgment states:
"[O]n the facts shown at trial the Claimants fell below the standards of communication with the State that could be described as good faith conduct. To state that the value of the Property was £275 million, as Mr Mincione did at the meeting on 20 November 2018, was not frank and was, at least without elaboration, misleading by reference to the sources available to him and in context …
[O]n the evidence I heard at trial, the [Secretariat of State] had reason to consider itself utterly let down in its experience with the Claimants. The Claimants made no attempt to protect the [Secretariat of State] from fraudulent bad actors. They took no care towards the [Secretariat of State] and they put their own interests first. The [Secretariat of State] expected more from professional counterparts, in Mr Mincione and others.”
The majority of the remaining declarations at trial were derived from provisions of the contemporaneous contractual documents and closely reflected the wording of such documents. The Judge indicated reservations about what those declarations would actually achieve for the parties and based on the “journey travelled in this dispute”, the resources consumed by that journey, and in the “interests of finality”, the Judge granted the remaining declarations (other than those related to ‘good faith’), noting that their final wording should “follow as closely as possible the wording of the contract provision involved.”
The High Court decision was delivered following a trial which took place across June and July 2024 and upheld the Secretariat’s position that there should be no declaration of good faith given Mr Mincione’s conduct and that of others associated with him.
The Daily Telegraph had described the dispute between Mr Mincione and the Secretariat as the trial of the century and the case was one of The Lawyer magazine’s Top 20 Cases of 2024.
The case involved many thousands of emails, texts and documents, numerous experts and witnesses including representatives of the Secretariat and highlights the meticulous work of the Commercial Disputes Team at Hill Dickinson LLP.
The judgment can be read in full here.
