Source: https://hsfnotes.com/publicinternationallaw/tag/english-state-immunity-act-1978/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 15:13:03+00:00

Document:
Herbert Smith Freehills, in conjunction with the British Branch of the International Law Association, is hosting a Seminar entitled “The State of State Immunity”. The Seminar will address Recent Developments, the “Commercial Purposes” Exception and provide practical guidance on negotiating immunity issues.
The immunity of states and their assets from the reach of national courts is an area of law with considerable practical implications in the context of contracts between states and commercial parties.
In this panel discussion, the speakers will consider recent developments on state immunity in the English courts, as well as the exceptions to the immunity of states granted by the State Immunity Act 1978. They will consider how effective waivers of immunity can be negotiated, and how immunity may apply to state-owned entities and other bodies. The speakers will draw on their considerable experience from the public and private sectors to offer practical guidance and insights into this significant area of law.
Places are limited. To register your interest in this event, or for further information, please contact Paul McKeating.
In the recent decision of Harb v HRH Prince Abdul Aziz Bin Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz  EWCA Civ 481, the English Court of Appeal (the Court) confirmed that the immunity afforded by the UK State Immunity Act 1978 (the SIA) applies to a head of state who dies in office in the same way as it applies to a head of state who stands down from office during his or her lifetime. In short, if the estate is sued, immunity exists only for official acts, and not private acts, committed before the head of state’s death in office. As noted by the Court of Appeal, the case was not covered directly by authority and appears to have been the first case of its kind to have dealt directly with this question of public international law.
In an appeal in a case considering the interrelation between arbitration and state immunity, on an application by France and Spain (the States), the English Court of Appeal (the Court) refused to reverse the decision of the High Court which granted permission to enforce two arbitral awards (the Awards) against the States under s66 of the English Arbitration Act 1996 (the Act). The background to the case and the decision of the High Court is described in our blog post here.
The States argued that they benefitted from immunity from the jurisdiction of the English courts under the State Immunity Act 1978 (the SIA). The Court found that in bringing an application challenging the jurisdiction of the tribunal under s67 and s72 of the Act, the States had taken steps in the proceedings other than for the sole purpose of preserving immunity. The States had been deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction.
On a practical level, the decision demonstrates the need for states to consider carefully their strategy in responding to proceedings brought against them, if they do not wish to risk losing the general immunity granted by the SIA.
In the case of (1) Benkharbouche and (2) Janah v (1) Embassy of the Republic of Sudan and (2) Libya, the English Court of Appeal (the Court) considered the claims by employees of the embassies of Sudan and Libya, that s16(1)(a) and 4(2) of the English State Immunity Act 1978 (the SIA) were incompatible with Art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the ECHR) and Art. 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the EU Charter). Both Art. 6 and Art. 47 relate to the right to a fair trial.
In its judgment of 5 February 2015, the Court determined that ss.4(2) and 16(1)(a) were incompatible with Art. 6 of the ECHR and a declaration of incompatibility would be made indicating to Parliament that the SIA requires amendment. Further, the Court found that these sections also violated Art. 47 of the EU Charter and that they should be disapplied where the claimants’ claims were derived from EU law measures. As described in more detail below, the Court’s decision indicates that state bodies and diplomatic missions that anticipate benefitting from immunity under the SIA may find that such immunity does not shield them from civil law claims, where it is incompatible with provisions of EU law. This case arose in the context of employment claims against the embassy employers but its application may be felt more broadly in other civil claims which are derived from EU law.
In another recent case involving employment claims, Reyes and Anor v Al-Malki and Anor, the respondent Saudi diplomatic agent and his wife claimed diplomatic immunity pursuant to Arts. 31 and 37 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961 (the Vienna Convention). In contrast to Benkharbouche (in which the focus of the Court’s consideration was the UK domestic law, the SIA), the Court of Appeal in Reyes was considering international law. In its judgment in Reyes of 5 February 2015, the Court found that: the claims brought were covered by diplomatic immunity pursuant to the Vienna Convention, on the basis that the activity of employing someone was incidental to life as a diplomatic agent for which the immunity was granted; the Vienna Convention remains an authoritative statement of international law on diplomatic immunity; the compatibility of the limitation on access to a court with the state’s international law obligations was determinative as to whether the restriction on access to a court was proportionate; and those obligations were not incompatible with Art. 6 of the ECHR.
In a recent decision in the case High Commissioner for Pakistan In the United Kingdom (“Pakistan“) v National Westminster Bank (the “Bank“), the English High Court considered the scope of sovereign immunity provided by section 1 of the English State Immunity Act 1978 (the “1978 Act“).
The case concerned competing claims by India, descendants of an Indian Prince (together, the “Interested Parties”), and Pakistan on a sum of money deposited into a bank account in 1948, following the end of British rule in India.
It was not necessary for the court to decide the question of whether Pakistan had waived sovereign immunity in order to answer the questions before it. However, the Court took the opportunity to examine whether Pakistan’s conduct in the proceedings had amounted to a waiver of immunity under s.2 of the 1978 Act with respect to the Interested Parties as well as the Bank.
The Court considered that once sovereign immunity is waived by a State instituting proceedings, it is waived for the duration of those proceedings, including any new claims that the State could have predicted would arise from the original proceedings.
The Court’s discussion in this case sheds some light on the boundaries of an area of law that has seen limited judicial consideration. It remains to be seen whether Pakistan will appeal, and so give a higher court an opportunity to provide further guidance.
In the recent decision of Harb v HRH Prince Abdul Aziz Bin Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz  EWHC 1807 (Ch), the High Court found that the principles of state immunity apply to a head of state who dies in office in the same way as they apply to a head of state who stands down from office during their lifetime. The Court found that both enjoy immunity only in respect of their official acts whilst in office. There was no justification for treating the estate of a head of state who dies in office in a more favourable way than (i) a living former head of state or (ii) the estate of a former head of state who dies some time after leaving office.

References: EWCA 
 Art. 6
 Art. 47
 Art. 6
 Art. 47
 Art. 6
 Art. 47
 Art. 6