Key Facts
- •GPGC Limited (a Trafigura entity) obtained a US$140m arbitral award against the Government of Ghana.
- •The award was enforced via a Cockerill order, served via diplomatic channels as per section 12(1) of the State Immunity Act 1978.
- •GPGC sought charging orders on Ghanaian properties, using alternative service under CPR rule 6.15, authorised by a Knowles order.
- •Ghana applied to set aside the Knowles order, arguing that charging order applications required diplomatic service under section 12(1) SIA 1978 and/or CPR rule 6.44.
- •Ghana also raised objections to the Knowles order's method of service (email and post).
Legal Principles
Service of documents on a state must be through diplomatic channels (section 12(1) SIA 1978) for 'instituting proceedings'.
State Immunity Act 1978, section 12(1)
The 'writ or other document' triggering diplomatic service is that which first asserts court jurisdiction over the state.
General Dynamics United Kingdom Ltd v State of Libya [2021] UKSC 22
CPR rule 6.44 mirrors section 12(1) SIA 1978, applying only to documents initiating proceedings.
The European Union v The Syrian Arab Republic [2018] EWHC 1712 (Comm)
Alternative service (CPR rule 6.15) is permissible with 'good reason'.
CPR rule 6.15
Enforcement proceedings are 'further steps' in existing proceedings, not requiring diplomatic service.
L v Y Regional Government of X [2015] EWHC 68 (Comm)
Outcomes
Ghana's application to set aside the Knowles order was refused.
Charging order applications were considered 'further steps' in existing enforcement proceedings, not requiring diplomatic service. Alternative service was justified under CPR rule 6.15 due to potential delays and the perishable nature of the asset.