SY RORO 1 PTE Limited & Anor v Onorato Armatori SRL & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1283 (Comm)
UK P&I Club NV v República Bolivariana De Venezuela
20 December 2023
[2023] EWCA Civ 1497
Court of Appeal
Venezuela and some insurers had a dispute. The insurers tried to stop Venezuela from suing in another court by asking a UK court for an order to do so. The UK court said no, because a law prevents them from ordering sovereign states to not take legal action elsewhere. The appeals court agreed this law is okay, as there's no international agreement to stop countries from doing this, and it's important to maintain good relationships between countries.
Key Facts
- •Collision between Venezuelan navy vessel and cruise liner, resulting in claims by Venezuela against the liner, its owners, and insurers (the Clubs).
- •Venezuela brought claims in Curaçao and Venezuela against the Clubs.
- •The Clubs sought anti-suit injunctions in England to restrain Venezuela from pursuing proceedings in Curaçao and Venezuela.
- •The English court had previously granted an interim anti-suit injunction.
- •The lower court refused to grant a permanent anti-suit injunction, based on the State Immunity Act 1978.
- •The Clubs appealed the decision.
Legal Principles
Section 13(2)(a) of the State Immunity Act 1978 prohibits granting relief against a state by way of injunction.
State Immunity Act 1978, Section 13(2)(a)
Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees a fair and public hearing.
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6(1)
Article 6(1) is not absolute; limitations are permissible if they do not impair the essence of the right to a fair trial, pursue a legitimate aim, and are proportionate.
Ashingdane v. United Kingdom, Z and others v. United Kingdom, Alassini v. Telecom Italia SpA, Churchill v. Merthyr Tydfil
Restrictive doctrine of state immunity limits immunity to acts of sovereign authority, not private law nature.
Benkharbouche v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
In the absence of a binding rule of customary international law, an interference with Article 6 rights is justified if the domestic rule falls within the range of possible rules consistent with current international standards.
Benkharbouche v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Fogarty v. United Kingdom
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the refusal to grant the anti-suit injunction was justified under section 13(2)(a) of the State Immunity Act 1978 and did not violate Article 6 of the ECHR.
Section 13(2)(a) of the State Immunity Act 1978 is compatible with Article 6 ECHR.
The court found that anti-suit injunctions are part of the enforcement jurisdiction, not the adjudicative jurisdiction, and that there is no universally accepted rule of customary international law requiring states to be subject to such injunctions. The UK's approach is not an outlier and is justified by legitimate domestic policy concerns regarding comity and the impracticality of enforcing injunctions against sovereign states.