Playing For Time ' Claiming To Be A Sovereign State ' Part 3

Published date20 May 2022
Law FirmW Legal
AuthorMr Steven Loble

In response to AELF's claim filed in the Commercial Court in London, SLM raised a very technical argument that the airline was not served correctly under the English State Immunity Act because the airline is, according to the airline, a sovereign state.

In Playing for time - claiming to be a sovereign state - Part 2, I suggested that that very technical argument was wholly without merit and that even if SLM were a state and needed to be served in a specific way, the airline had consented to service of process by the bailiff in Suriname and had waived any objection to the jurisdiction.

SLM sought permission to appeal to appeal on three grounds, as follows: -

Ground 1

That "appears in proceedings" in section 12(3) of the SIA must refer to any act of waiver, whether of the common law or statutory type, which disables the defendant from disputing jurisdiction.

Ground 2

The Judge erred in law in concluding that SLM was not entitled to be served with the Claim Form in accordance with section 12(1) of the SIA because:

2.1. SLM was a "separate entity" and a separate entity is not entitled to the privilege granted by section 12(1).

2.2. SLM's entry into the agreement which gives rise to these proceedings was not an act in the exercise of Suriname's sovereign authority.

Ground 3

Even if section 12(1) of the SIA does apply to SLM, SLM agreed to accept...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT