The Daily Telegraph described the dispute between Raffaele Mincione and The Secretariat of the Holy See in the Vatican as the trial of the century. That may have been something of an exaggeration, but the trial certainly garnered considerable publicity and was one of The Lawyer’s Top 20 Cases of 2024.

Mincione was an Italian financier who had been involved in facilitating the acquisition by the Secretariat of an expensive property in 60 Sloane Avenue. His involvement over a number of years with the Secretariat had been considered by the Vatican courts in a lengthy and high profile trial which had led to him (together with a number of others) being convicted of offences and sentenced to imprisonment of six and a half years and ordered to pay compensation of Euro 200m. That judgment is subject to appeal.

However, in relation to the Sloane Avenue transaction, Mincione was acquitted (again, subject to appeal). Not satisfied with that, he sought to litigate the case in the Commercial Court relying on an exclusive jurisdiction clause in the sale agreements (after having initially brought proceedings during the course of criminal investigation by the Vatican). At first instance, the judge held that the proceedings served no useful purpose and should be stayed but that was reversed by the Court of Appeal [2022] EWCA Civ 105 who ordered that the case be tried here. That led to a three week trial in the Commercial Court in summer 2024.

The trial was nothing if not unusual. The Secretariat led evidence from the Pope’s Chief of Staff, Archbishop Peña Parra, who was accused of dishonesty and of misleading the Pope, These allegations were rejected by the judge.

Mincione sought to rehabilitate his reputation with an endorsement from the English Commercial Court. Although the judge rejected the allegations of conspiracy involving Mr Mincione, he did not achieve this. The judge held that Mincione had not been frank and had made a misleading statement in relation to the value of the Sloane Avenue property to the Secretariat. The key passages from the judgment of Robin Knowles J (referring to the Secretariat as “the State”) were:

“In my judgment, on 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. …, the State had reason to consider itself utterly let down in its experience with the Claimants. The Claimants made no attempt to protect the State from fraudulent bad actors. They took no care towards the State and they put their own interests first. The State expected more from professional counterparts, in Mr Mincione and others. “