Peterson Energia Inversora & Ors v The Argentine Republic

Expert evidence on Argentinian law is relevant and admissible for the jurisdiction challenge, as it will assist the court in characterising the acts as sovereign or commercial and in addressing public policy and state immunity objections. Bifurcation is refused as all issues can be efficiently dealt with in the scheduled hearing without duplication of costs or time.

Parties: Claimants: Peterson Energia Inversora and ors; Defendant: The Argentine Republic
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 18 February 2026
Procedural Posture: Commercial Court Jurisdiction Challenge and Enforcement Proceedings / Ruling on Applications for Admission of Expert Evidence and Bifurcation
Legal Topics: Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, State Immunity, Public Policy, Foreign Law Expert Evidence, Issue Estoppel, Bifurcation of Proceedings

International Law Commercial Law Civil Procedure Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments State Immunity Public Policy Foreign Law Expert Evidence Issue Estoppel +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 Party arguments 2

Parties

Peterson Energia Inversora and ors

Claimants

The Argentine Republic

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Jurisdiction Challenge and Enforcement Proceedings / Ruling on Applications for Admission of Expert Evidence and Bifurcation

Legal Issues

1 Whether expert evidence on Argentinian law should be admitted for the jurisdiction challenge
2 Whether bifurcation of issues for the May 2026 hearing is appropriate
3 Whether the SDNY judgment can be enforced in England given public policy and state immunity objections