Kingdom of Spain v Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.à.r.l.Citation:[2023] HCA 11Before:Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot JJDate:12 Apr 2023Case Number:S43/2022Read more

Kingdom of Spain v Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.à.r.l.Citation:[2023] HCA 11Before:Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot JJDate:12 Apr 2023Case Number:S43/2022Read more

The Court held that the appellant did not waive foreign State immunity from jurisdiction merely by entering into the ICSID Convention or by agreeing to Articles 53, 54, and 55. The terms 'recognition', 'enforcement', and 'execution' in the ICSID Convention have distinct meanings, and there is no inconsistency between the English, French, and Spanish texts that would affect the outcome. The appellant is immune from the jurisdiction of Australian courts in these proceedings.

Parties
Appellant: Unknown Appellant (Foreign State); Respondent: Unknown Respondents
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Public International Law / Enforcement of Arbitral Award / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Foreign State Immunity, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, ICSID Convention, Waiver of Immunity, Treaty Interpretation
Public International Law Arbitration State Immunity Foreign State Immunity Enforcement of Arbitral Awards ICSID Convention Waiver of Immunity Treaty Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unknown Appellant (Foreign State)

Appellant

Unknown Respondents

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Public International Law / Enforcement of Arbitral Award / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant foreign State is immune from jurisdiction in proceedings for recognition and enforcement of an ICSID arbitral award under Australian law
  2. 2 Whether the appellant waived foreign State immunity by agreement or by entry into the ICSID Convention
  3. 3 Whether the terms 'recognition', 'enforcement', and 'execution' in the ICSID Convention have separate and different meanings

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the appellant did not waive foreign State immunity from jurisdiction merely by entering into the ICSID Convention or by agreeing to Articles 53, 54, and 55. The terms 'recognition', 'enforcement', and 'execution' in the ICSID Convention have distinct meanings, and there is no inconsistency between the English, French, and Spanish texts that would affect the outcome. The appellant is immune from the jurisdiction of Australian courts in these proceedings.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The proceedings for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.