Playing For Time ' Claiming To Be A Sovereign State ' Part 4 ' Time Ran Out

• Published date: 30 June 2022
• Subject Matter: Government, Public Sector, Constitutional & Administrative Law, Government Contracts, Procurement & PPP
• Law Firm: W Legal
• Author: Mr 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. This argument led to two hearings in both of which SLM's arguments were dismissed.

SLM then sought permission to appeal - the result of that application was set out in Playing for time - claiming to be a sovereign state -- Part 3.

A single Lord Justice was very dismissive of the application, saying,

"In view of the clear wording of s.14 of the State Immunity Act 1978, it is not remotely arguable that the service provisions in s. 12(1) of that Act extend to separate entities such as the defendant/applicant. The view of Butcher J in Dynasty Co for Oil and Gas Trading Ltd v Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq [2021] EWHC 952 (Comm) is plainly...