The Commercial Court has dismissed a claim against various individuals and entities on grounds of state immunity: Hashwah & Ors v Qatar National Bank (Q.P.S.C) & Ors [2022] EWHC 2242 (Comm).
The claimants alleged that the defendants were connected to certain unlawful acts in Syria and that the defendants’ actions were authorised/directed by a foreign State. The defendants (while denying the allegations) challenged jurisdiction on grounds of state immunity. They argued that that the claim was based on actions allegedly undertaken as agents of the foreign State. As a result, on the principles set out in Jones v Ministry of the Interior of Saudi Arabia [2007] 1 AC 270, the State was indirectly impleaded and the action was barred by state immunity.
The claimants made various arguments in response, which touched on a number of interesting issues, including: (a) what constitutes a “sovereign act”; (b) the relationship between state immunity and UN Security Council Resolutions; (c) the effect of Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights on pleas of state immunity; and (d) the scope of the “commercial transactions” exception in section 3 of the State Immunity Act 1978.
HHJ Pelling KC rejected the arguments advanced by the claimants and concluded that the claim was barred by state immunity. The Judge also rejected an application for permission to appeal and an application for a certificate permitting the claimants to pursue a leapfrog appeal to the Supreme Court.
Daniel Toledano KC and James Ruddell acted for the First Defendant (instructed by Travers Smith LLP). Hannah Brown KC, Sandy Phipps and Veena Srirangam acted for the Second Defendant (instructed by Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP).
Please see the judgment here.