Aziz v Aziz & Ors Rev 1

Aziz v Aziz & Ors Rev 1

There is no rule of international law or statutory obligation requiring the English courts to redact judgments to prevent the identification of a foreign head of state in circumstances where there is no attack on dignity as understood in international law. The principle of open justice prevails, and the Sultan is entitled to no greater protection than any other third party. The appeal is dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Mariam Aziz; 10th Defendant/respondent: Aviva Amir; First Defendant: Mr Aziz; Intervener/appellant: HM the Sultan of Brunei; Advocate to the Court: Sir Michael Wood
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
State Immunity, Diplomatic Privileges, Open Justice, Anonymity Orders, Freedom of Expression
International Law Civil Procedure Human Rights State Immunity Diplomatic Privileges Open Justice Anonymity Orders Freedom of Expression

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mariam Aziz

Claimant

Aviva Amir

10th Defendant/respondent

Mr Aziz

First Defendant

HM the Sultan of Brunei

Intervener/appellant

Sir Michael Wood

Advocate to the Court

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 29 of the Vienna Convention as applied by section 20 of the State Immunity Act 1978 entitles a foreign head of state to redaction of judgments to prevent identification in English court proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the mention of a foreign head of state in judgments constitutes an 'attack on dignity' under international law requiring court intervention.
  3. 3 Whether the court is under an obligation or has discretion to redact judgments to protect the dignity of a foreign head of state.

Ratio Decidendi

There is no rule of international law or statutory obligation requiring the English courts to redact judgments to prevent the identification of a foreign head of state in circumstances where there is no attack on dignity as understood in international law. The principle of open justice prevails, and the Sultan is entitled to no greater protection than any other third party. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No further redaction of judgments to remove references to the Sultan or related parties.
  • Existing redactions for confidential information remain in place.