GPGC Limited v The Government of the Republic of Ghana
[2023] EWHC 2531 (Comm)
The European Union & Anor. v The Syrian Arab Republic
21 April 2023
[2023] EWHC 1116 (Comm)
High Court
A bank sued Syria for unpaid loans. Syria didn't show up to court. The judge said it was okay to email Syria's government to let them know about the lawsuit, even though Syria didn't reply. The judge also said it was okay that they emailed other Syrian officials to make sure Syria got the paperwork.
Key Facts
- •The European Union and the European Investment Bank (Claimants) sought to recover approximately EUR 130 million owed by the Syrian Arab Republic (Defendant) under development loans.
- •Syria did not appear or was represented in court.
- •The Claimants argued that service was valid under CPR 6.44 and section 12(1) of the State Immunity Act 1978 via email by the FCDO to the Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
- •Syria had previously acknowledged service and filed a defense but failed to file the documents.
- •The Claimants also argued for alternative service via email to the Syrian Embassy in Brussels under section 12(6) of the State Immunity Act 1978, or an extension of time for service under CPR 7.6(3).
Legal Principles
Service of process on a State must be transmitted through the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) to the State's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
State Immunity Act 1978, section 12(1)
Service is deemed effected when the document is received at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
State Immunity Act 1978, section 12(1)
The FCDO can exercise discretion in choosing the method of service, provided it's not contrary to local law.
General Dynamics v. Libya [2022] AC 318 UKSC, para. 33; Embassy of Brazil v. De Castro Cerqueira [2014] 1 WLR 3718, para. 31
Email service can constitute valid service under section 12(1) when the email arrives in the recipient's electronic depository.
European Union v. The Syrian Arab Republic [2018] EWHC 181 (Comm.), para. 7; Anson v. Trump [1998] 1 WLR 1404
A positive act of receipt by the defendant state is not required for valid service under section 12(1).
This judgment; contrasting with Heiser v. The Islamic Republic of Iran [2019] EWHC 2074, para. 239
The court can authorize alternative service methods and validate past service where good reason exists.
CPR 6.27; CPR 6.15; Abela v Baadarani [2013] UKSC 44
Outcomes
The court declared that service of the claim form was validly effected by the FCDO's email to the Syrian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 11 November 2022, under section 12(1) of the State Immunity Act 1978.
The email was sent through the FCDO, received at the Ministry's email server, and the method was not prohibited by Syrian law. The court rejected the need for a positive act of receipt.
The court validated the steps taken to serve the application on Syria and provided for future service of documents.
Syria had notice of the proceedings, failed to provide an operative address for service, and there was evidence of attempts to avoid service.