Al Attiya v Bin-Jassim Bin-Jaber Al Thani [2016] EWHC 212 (QB) (15 February 2016)

Al Attiya v Bin-Jassim Bin-Jaber Al Thani [2016] EWHC 212 (QB) (15 February 2016)

The claim is barred by state immunity because the acts alleged were performed by the defendant in his capacity as a senior public official of Qatar, and the claim would require adjudication of acts of state. The pleadings have not been amended to allege a purely private act. Even if state immunity did not apply, the defendant is entitled to diplomatic immunity as an accredited diplomat, as conclusively certified by the FCO.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 212
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Fawaz Al Attiya; Defendant/applicant: Hamad Bin-Jassim Bin-Jaber Al Thani
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil (queen's Bench Division) / Jurisdictional Challenge (application to Strike Out Claim)
Outcome
Claim struck out for want of jurisdiction (state immunity); alternatively, diplomatic immunity applies.
Legal Topics
State Immunity, Diplomatic Immunity, Jurisdiction, Torture, Act of State Doctrine
Public International Law Diplomatic Law Tort Law State Immunity Diplomatic Immunity Jurisdiction Torture Act of State Doctrine

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fawaz Al Attiya

Claimant/respondent

Hamad Bin-Jassim Bin-Jaber Al Thani

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil (queen's Bench Division) / Jurisdictional Challenge (application to Strike Out Claim)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim is barred by state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is entitled to diplomatic immunity under the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964 and Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings could be amended to avoid the immunity bars

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is barred by state immunity because the acts alleged were performed by the defendant in his capacity as a senior public official of Qatar, and the claim would require adjudication of acts of state. The pleadings have not been amended to allege a purely private act. Even if state immunity did not apply, the defendant is entitled to diplomatic immunity as an accredited diplomat, as conclusively certified by the FCO.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out for want of jurisdiction (state immunity); alternatively, diplomatic immunity applies.

Orders

  • Claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under State Immunity Act 1978.
  • No need to consider amendment of pleadings at this stage.