Botas -v- Tepe [2016] JCA 199D (04 November 2016)

Botas -v- Tepe [2016] JCA 199D (04 November 2016)

The Court refused leave to appeal to the Privy Council because, although arguable points of law were identified regarding the degree of control necessary to engage state immunity, these points were not of sufficient general public importance or immediacy to merit consideration by the Privy Council at this time. The issues were found to be fact-specific and settled by existing law.

Citation
[2016] JCA 199D
Parties
First Appellant: Boru Hatlari Ile Petrol Taşima AŞ (Botaş Petroleum Pipeline Corporation Limited); Second Appellant: Turkish Petroleum International Limited; Third Appellant: Botaş International Limited; Respondent: Tepe İnşaat Sanayii AŞ; Party Cited: Nacap BV
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
04 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Post Judgment Applications / Application for Leave to Appeal to Privy Council and Related Consequential Orders
Outcome
Leave to appeal to the Privy Council refused. Other consequential applications dismissed or not determined due to refusal of leave.
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Arbitration Awards, Sovereign Immunity, Jurisdiction, Appeals to Privy Council, Asset Seizure
International Law Civil Procedure Arbitration State Immunity Enforcement of Arbitration Awards Sovereign Immunity Jurisdiction Appeals to Privy Council +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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boru Hatlari Ile Petrol Taşima AŞ (Botaş Petroleum Pipeline Corporation Limited)

First Appellant

Turkish Petroleum International Limited

Second Appellant

Botaş International Limited

Third Appellant

Tepe İnşaat Sanayii AŞ

Respondent

Nacap BV

Party Cited

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Post Judgment Applications / Application for Leave to Appeal to Privy Council and Related Consequential Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal to the Privy Council should be granted on the issue of state immunity in enforcement of arbitral awards against assets of a state-owned entity
  2. 2 Whether the Republic of Turkey's interest or control over shares in Jersey subsidiaries is sufficient to engage sovereign immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978, section 13(2)(b)
  3. 3 Whether the case raises an arguable point of law of general public importance

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused leave to appeal to the Privy Council because, although arguable points of law were identified regarding the degree of control necessary to engage state immunity, these points were not of sufficient general public importance or immediacy to merit consideration by the Privy Council at this time. The issues were found to be fact-specific and settled by existing law.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal to the Privy Council refused. Other consequential applications dismissed or not determined due to refusal of leave.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal to the Privy Council is refused.
  • No order as to costs or further consequential relief due to refusal of leave.