header-logo header-logo

14 July 2011
Issue: 7474 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Conflict of laws

NML Capital Ltd v Republic of Argentina [2011] UKSC 31, [2011] All ER (D) 44 (Jul)

Section 31 of the Civil Jurisdictions and Judgments Act 1982 was the means by which the UK’s legislator achieved, for the first time, a comprehensive and coherent treatment of the issue of state immunity in respect of foreign judgments. Adopting a narrow interpretation, the drafters of the State Immunity Act 1978 or Parliament had not contemplated that s 3(1)(a) of that Act had in mind that it would or should apply to a foreign judgment against a foreign state.

Section 31 of the 1982 Act provided comprehensively for the recognition and enforcement of the foreign judgments to which it applied. A foreign judgment against a state would be capable of enforcement in England if both of the following conditions were fulfilled: first, that the foreign court would have had jurisdiction if it had applied the UK rules on sovereign immunity set out in ss 2 to 11 of the 1978 Act, the effect of which was that a state was

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll