SerVaas Inc v Rafidain Bank: [2012] UKSC 40; [2012] WLR (D) 257
“Whether property was ‘for the time being in use or intended for use for commercial purposes’ within the meaning of section 13(4) of the State Immunity Act 1978 did not depend on the property’s origin but on the use to which the state had chosen to put it.”
WLR Daily, 17th August 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Yukos Capital Sarl v OJSC Rosneft Oil Co (No 2): [2012] EWCA Civ 855; [2012] WLR (D) 186
“Act of state doctrines did not go so far as to prevent examination of the substantial justice available in the courts of foreign jurisdictions, whether in a particular case or on a systemic basis. Where there was a jurisdiction to enforce a foreign award, it was open to the court to look at whether the case had been fairly decided. Where a party to the litigation was asking the English court to recognise a foreign court decision, the English court must be entitled to decide whether or not to enforce the foreign court decision.”
WLR Daily, 27th June 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
NML Capital Ltd v Republic of Argentina [2011] UKSC 31; [2011] WLR (D) 220
“The Republic of Argentina was not entitled, by virtue of section 31 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, to state immunity in respect of proceedings brought in England for the enforcement of a judgment obtained in New York. In addition, the terms of the agreement between the republic and the claimant, amounted to a waiver of immunity and a submission to the jurisdiction of the English court.”
WLR Daily, 6th July 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“The question of who was a head of state such as to attract state immunity was a matter for the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and not for the court. A certificate issued by the Secretary of State under section 21 of the State Immunity Act 1978 was conclusive evidence of the status of a territory for the purposes of Part I of the 1978 Act. The certificate was the only proper means by which the court could, for the purposes of the common law where it continued to apply, inform itself of a territory’s status and of the identity of the head of state.”
WLR Daily, 25th May 2011
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Please note that once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
NML Capital Ltd v Republic of Argentina [2010] EWCA Civ 41; [2010] WLR (D) 28
“A court had no jurisdiction to permit a claimant to serve proceedings on a foreign state unless it was satisfied that there was, at the least, a good arguable case that the defendant state was not immune from suit. S 31 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 remained subject to the provisions of the State Immunity Act 1978 as regards the circumstances in which the courts could exercise jurisdiction over states when a claimant wished to implead them in those courts.”
WLR Daily, 5th February 2010
Source: www.lawreports.co.uk
Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.
“The government is invoking an obscure legal principle to dismiss claims of torture and rape by the British colonial administration in Kenya, campaigners claimed.”
The Guardian, 25th January 2010
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
NML Capital Ltd v Republic of Argentina
Queen’s Bench Division
“A foreign state was not entitled to claim sovereign immunity to avoid enforcement of a judgment validly obtained in another overseas jurisdiction.”
The Times, 11th February 2009
Source: www.timesonline.co.uk
Please note the Times Law Reports are only available free on Times Online for 21 days from the date of publication.
“A new law which would allow victims of torture to sue torturers in UK courts is being considered by Parliament.”
BBC News, 16th May 2008
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024