The Supreme Court has clarified the scope of the exception to immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978 for property held by a state which is “in use or intended for use for commercial purposes”, an issue that has important practical implications both for states and for parties seeking to enforce judgments against assets held by states: SerVaas Incorporated v Rafidain Bank and others [2012] UKSC 40. The decision confirms that the origin of the property against which execution is sought is irrelevant to the question of whether it is held for commercial purposes. In this case, the assets could not be said to be in use for commercial purposes and were therefore held to be immune from execution. Click here to read more about the decision on our arbitration blog.
John Ogilvie and Ardil Salem have published an article in the New Law Journal which considers the implications of SerVaas and concludes that the Supreme Court’s decision is likely to make it more difficult to enforce judgments against state-owned assets in England. Click here to download a pdf of the article.