¹ Sabah Shipyard (Pakistan) Ltd v Islamic Republic of Pakistan [2002] All ER (D) 201 (Nov), [2002] EWCA Civ 1643. Also reported at [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep 571.Google Scholar

² At para 38.Google Scholar

³ At para 43.Google Scholar

⁴ For commentary on State immunity and the State Immunity Act 1978 see Lewis, C JState and Diplomatic Immunity (3rd ednLondonLloyds of London Press 1990)Google Scholar

⁵ and Wood, PProject Finance, Subordinated Debt and State Loans (LondonSweet & Maxwell 1995).Google Scholar

⁶ [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep 521.Google Scholar

⁷ ‘[T]his court will not make any order in vain‘ per Kindersley V—C New Brunswick and Canada Ry and Land Co v Muggeridge (1859) 4 Drew 686.Google Scholar

⁸ Pill, LJ, at para 54.Google Scholar

⁹ Mirroring Art 18 of the European Convention on State Immunity.Google Scholar

¹⁰ And the intention of the framers of the European Convention on State Immunity.Google Scholar

¹¹ Ibid, s 2.

¹² Ibid, s 3.

¹³ See Eady, DSmith, ATHArlidge, Eady & Smith on Contempt (2nd edn.LondonSweet & Maxwell 1999), at 3–4.Google Scholar

¹⁴ See Benham v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR 293, The Times, 24 June 1996 and Newman v Modern Bookbinders Ltd [2000] 1 WLR 2559, [2000] 2 All ER 814 CA.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Save for certain exceptions such as the commission or authoriztion of torture, see R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrates and others exp Pinochet Ugarte (No 3) [2000] 1 AC 147 HLGoogle Scholar

¹⁶ [1994] 1 AC 377.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Ibid 424–5.

¹⁸ Although there may be doubts as to whether the court would entertain a contempt action which only seeks a declaration, RSC O.45.5 (incorporated into the CPR by r50.1) provides that a judgment or order may be enforced by writ of sequestration or order of committal. There is no reference to any procedure to seek a declaration of contempt, although arguably a declaration could be sought pursuant to CPR r25.1 which provides: ‘The court may grant the following interim remedies…(b) an interim declaration.’Google Scholar

¹⁹ Compared with a contempt action against the injuncted party itself which is civil in nature (at least nominally).Google Scholar

²⁰ Per Lord Uthwatt, Marengo v Daily Sketch and Sunday Graphic Ltd [1948] 1 All ER 406 HL, at 407.Google Scholar

²¹ The Times 2 May 1997.Google Scholar

²² Incorporating the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964.Google Scholar

²³ [1993] 2 Lloyd's Rep 208.Google Scholar

²⁴ [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep 521.Google Scholar

²⁵ Sabah Shipyard v Pakistan [2002] All ER (D) 201, at para 41.Google Scholar

²⁶ See Art 20, ‘A Contracting State shall give effect to a judgment given against it by a court of another Contracting State.’ However, Art 20(2) also provides that a Contracting State is not obliged to give effect to a judgment where proceedings are pending before a court of that (or another) Contracting State where those proceedings were the first to be instituted.Google Scholar