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 as a public official of Qatar, and the pleadings do not support a claim against him in a purely private capacity. The court is bound by the FCO certificate confirming the defendant's diplomatic status, and thus diplomatic immunity also applies. The court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 212 (QB)
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 (preliminary Hearing on Immunity)
Outcome
Claim struck out for want of jurisdiction (state and diplomatic immunity upheld)
Legal Topics
State Immunity, Diplomatic Immunity, Jurisdiction, Tort (trespass, False Imprisonment, Torture)
Public International Law Civil Procedure State Immunity Diplomatic Immunity Jurisdiction Tort (trespass, False Imprisonment, Torture)

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 2 Authorities cited 10 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 (preliminary Hearing on Immunity)

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

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is barred by state immunity because the acts alleged were performed by the defendant as a public official of Qatar, and the pleadings do not support a claim against him in a purely private capacity. The court is bound by the FCO certificate confirming the defendant's diplomatic status, and thus diplomatic immunity also applies. The court has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out for want of jurisdiction (state and diplomatic immunity upheld)

Orders

  • Claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under State Immunity Act 1978 and Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964