Apex Global Management Ltd v Fi Call Ltd& Ors

Apex Global Management Ltd v Fi Call Ltd& Ors

Neither Prince Mishal nor Prince Abdulaziz established that they are members of King Abdullah’s family forming part of his household within the meaning of section 20(1)(b) of the State Immunity Act 1978. Even if they were, immunity would not extend to actions relating to commercial activity exercised outside official functions, regardless of territorial limitation.

Parties
Petitioner: Apex Global Management Limited; Respondent: Fi Call Limited; Respondent: Global Torch Limited; Respondent: HRH Prince Abdulaziz bin Mishal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud; Respondent: Emad Mahmoud Ahmed Abu-Ayshih; Respondent: HRH Prince Mishal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Petition Under Section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 / Ruling on Applications for Sovereign Immunity and Jurisdiction
Outcome
Applications for sovereign immunity dismissed
Legal Topics
State Immunity, Diplomatic Immunity, Shareholder Disputes, Jurisdiction, Commercial Transactions
International Law Company Law Civil Procedure State Immunity Diplomatic Immunity Shareholder Disputes Jurisdiction Commercial Transactions

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Apex Global Management Limited

Petitioner

Fi Call Limited

Respondent

Global Torch Limited

Respondent

HRH Prince Abdulaziz bin Mishal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud

Respondent

Emad Mahmoud Ahmed Abu-Ayshih

Respondent

HRH Prince Mishal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition Under Section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 / Ruling on Applications for Sovereign Immunity and Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Princes are entitled to claim immunity under section 20(1)(b) of the State Immunity Act 1978 as 'members of [King Abdullah’s] family forming part of his household'
  2. 2 Whether proceedings are excluded from immunity as 'an action relating to any commercial activity exercised by the diplomatic agent in the receiving state outside his official functions' under article 31.1 of schedule 1 to the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964

Ratio Decidendi

Neither Prince Mishal nor Prince Abdulaziz established that they are members of King Abdullah’s family forming part of his household within the meaning of section 20(1)(b) of the State Immunity Act 1978. Even if they were, immunity would not extend to actions relating to commercial activity exercised outside official functions, regardless of territorial limitation.

Court Disposition

Applications for sovereign immunity dismissed

Orders

  • Princes' applications claiming sovereign immunity from Apex's petition are dismissed.
  • Court will hear counsel on ancillary matters including the date for determination of remaining jurisdictional issues.