header-logo header-logo

Constitutional law

28 March 2013
Issue: 7554 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Apex Global Management Ltd v Fi Call Ltd and others [2013] EWHC 587 (Ch), [2013] All ER (D) 202 (Mar)

The proper construction of s 20(1)(b) of the State Immunity Act 1978 was a matter of pure law. Its words had to be construed on normal principles of statutory construction. The words “members of his family forming part of his household” had to be given their normal meaning in the context in which they appeared. It was important that they were used in s 20(1)(b) of the Act to refer to members of a sovereign’s or head of state’s household, not the household of a diplomatic agent. The purpose of the head of state’s immunity was functional: likewise, the personal immunity of a sovereign’s family had to be functional in the same sense. It could not extend to everyone who assisted the sovereign or to everyone who carried out royal, constitutional or representational functions. The question was where the line was to be drawn. The key was to be found in the word “household”. While it would be

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

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

Forum of Insurance Lawyers elects president for 2026

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Partner joinslabour and employment practice in London

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll