Basel Hashwah & Ors v Qatar National Bank (QPSC)

Basel Hashwah & Ors v Qatar National Bank (QPSC)

The court has no jurisdiction over the claimants' primary case as it is precluded by state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978, which applies to governmental acts such as state-sponsored terrorism. The commercial transactions exception does not apply as the claims do not arise directly out of commercial transactions. UN Security Council Resolution 1373 does not displace state immunity in UK law, nor does Article 6 ECHR require access to court where immunity is mandated by international law. Permission to amend the claim form is refused in its current form as the alternative case is contingent on a trial of the primary case, which is barred by immunity.

Parties
Claimants/respondents: Basel Hashwah and others; First Defendant/applicant: Qatar National Bank (Q. P. S. C.); Second Defendant/applicant: Doha Bank Ltd; Eleventh Defendant/applicant: Christian Comair; Seventeenth Defendant/applicant: Abdulhadi Mana A Al-Hajri
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial Court Application / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Permission to Amend Claim Form
Outcome
Defendants' applications granted; claim struck out for lack of jurisdiction; claimants' application to amend refused in current form.
Legal Topics
State Immunity, Jurisdiction, Terrorism Financing, Commercial Transactions Exception, UN Security Council Resolutions, Article 6 ECHR
International Law Civil Procedure Human Rights State Immunity Jurisdiction Terrorism Financing Commercial Transactions Exception UN Security Council Resolutions +1 more

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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Basel Hashwah and others

Claimants/respondents

Qatar National Bank (Q. P. S. C.)

First Defendant/applicant

Doha Bank Ltd

Second Defendant/applicant

Christian Comair

Eleventh Defendant/applicant

Abdulhadi Mana A Al-Hajri

Seventeenth Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial Court Application / Ruling on Jurisdiction and Permission to Amend Claim Form

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction over claims against Qatari defendants on grounds of state immunity
  2. 2 Whether the commercial transactions exception to state immunity applies
  3. 3 Whether UN Security Council Resolution 1373 displaces state immunity

Ratio Decidendi

The court has no jurisdiction over the claimants' primary case as it is precluded by state immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978, which applies to governmental acts such as state-sponsored terrorism. The commercial transactions exception does not apply as the claims do not arise directly out of commercial transactions. UN Security Council Resolution 1373 does not displace state immunity in UK law, nor does Article 6 ECHR require access to court where immunity is mandated by international law. Permission to amend the claim form is refused in its current form as the alternative case is contingent on a trial of the primary case, which is barred by immunity.

Court Disposition

Defendants' applications granted; claim struck out for lack of jurisdiction; claimants' application to amend refused in current form.

Orders

  • Declaration that the court has no jurisdiction over the claims against the first, second, eleventh, and seventeenth defendants on grounds of state immunity
  • Claim Form and service on those defendants set aside