header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

State immunity & arbitral awards

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
30 May 2025 / Masood Ahmed , Osman Mohammed
Issue: 8118 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Jurisdiction , Arbitration , Commercial , International
printer mail-detail
220709
Masood Ahmed & Osman Mohammed consider whether states must give express consent to waive their immunity
  • The Commercial Court has held that state immunity is procedural, and enforcement of arbitral awards against states requires an express and unequivocal waiver of immunity.
  • This decision highlights the need for clear, written agreements from states waiving immunity in arbitration and enforcement proceedings to avoid legal barriers.

In the recent case of CC/Devas (Mauritius) Ltd and other companies v The Republic of India [2025] EWHC 964 (Comm), the Commercial Court was asked to determine whether a state waives its right to sovereign immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978 (SIA 1978) and thereby submits to the adjudicative jurisdiction of the English courts because it has ratified the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (NYC).

The claimants commenced arbitration proceedings against the Republic of India in respect of India’s termination of a satellite communications contract. The claimants obtained an order from the

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Set creates new client and business development role amid growth

Kingsley Napley—Tim Lowles

Kingsley Napley—Tim Lowles

Sports disputes practice launchedwith partner appointment

mfg Solicitors—Tom Evans

mfg Solicitors—Tom Evans

Tax and succession planning offering expands with returning partner

NEWS
Read All
Who’s on the 2026 silk list?
The rank of King’s Counsel (KC) has been awarded to 96 barristers, and no solicitors, in the latest silk round
NLJ this week: When your brain signs the contract
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
NLJ this week: Comparators—how close is close enough?
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
NLJ this week: Domicile—more than where you live
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
NLJ this week: Police, contempt and the rule of law
Can a chief constable be held responsible for disobedient officers? Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth, professor of public law at De Montfort University, examines a Court of Appeal ruling that answers firmly: yes
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll