header-logo header-logo

02 June 2011
Issue: 7468 / Categories: Case law , Law reports
printer mail-detail

State immunity—Definition of state—Immigration

Regina (HRH Sultan of Pahang) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 616

Court of Appeal, Civil Division, 25 May 2011, Maurice Kay, Smith, Moore-Bick LJJ

The question of the status of a person as a head of state enjoying state immunity is a matter for the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and not for the courts, and accordingly a certificate issued by the Secretary of State under s 21 of the State Immunity Act 1978 is conclusive evidence of the status of a territory for the purposes of Pt I of the Act.

Ian Macdonald QC and Aileen McColgan (instructed by Grange & Castle) for the claimant. Steven Kovats QC (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the defendant.

The claimant was the sultan of one of nine sultanates making up the Malaysian Federation. At the time of bringing of proceedings, he had not been the supreme head of the Federation for some years. A certificate (the certificate) had been signed by the Director of Protocol at

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
The Environment Agency can prosecute offences beyond environmental legislation where proceedings support its statutory functions, the Divisional Court has confirmed
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll