Al Saud & Anor v Apex Global Management Ltd

A family member forms part of a head of state’s household under section 20(1)(b) of the State Immunity Act 1978 only within the established diplomatic meaning of that expression. The category principally covers spouses, civil partners, dependent children and dependent relatives. Performing royal, constitutional or representational functions does not extend it to an adult relative who maintains a separate household.

The Act permits only modifications to diplomatic immunity which are necessary, rather than merely desirable. A foreign ambassador’s statement about membership of a sovereign’s household is important evidence, but it is not conclusive in the absence of a statutory certificate from the Secretary of State.

The appellants were Saudi Arabian princes joined as respondents to an unfair prejudice petition concerning an English company. They claimed personal sovereign immunity as members of King Abdullah’s family forming part of his household within section 20(1)(b) of the State Immunity Act 1978.

Vos J dismissed their immunity applications. He found that neither Prince had proved membership of the King’s household, although he interpreted that concept as capable, in rare cases, of including a relative who performed the sovereign’s functions full-time. He also concluded that the commercial-activity exception could extend to activity outside the United Kingdom.

The Princes appealed against the construction of the Act and the factual findings. They also contended that a letter from the Saudi ambassador conclusively established their status. The principal issue was the meaning of “members of his family forming part of his household”.

1. The appeal was dismissed unanimously. Section 20(1)(b) of the State Immunity Act 1978 gives the expression “members of his family forming part of his household” no wider meaning for heads of state than it has for diplomats. Its established focus is upon close family members whose relationship is characterised by dependence. It ordinarily includes a spouse or civil partner, minor children and, in appropriate circumstances, older dependent children or other dependent relatives.

2. The immunity of family members exists solely to protect the head of state’s performance of official functions. It does not protect adult relatives because they perform royal, governmental, constitutional or representational functions of their own. There was therefore no basis for extending immunity to a regent, heir or other adult relative who maintained a separate household merely because that person assisted the sovereign. Such an extension was not a “necessary modification” of diplomatic immunity.

3. Both Princes fell outside the statutory concept. Each maintained a separate household and was neither a child nor a dependent relative of King Abdullah. Their royal functions, seniority and closeness to the King could not alter that conclusion.

4. A letter from a foreign ambassador stating that a person belongs to a head of state’s household is important evidence, but it is not conclusive. In the absence of a certificate from the Secretary of State under section 4 of the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964, the court must evaluate the evidence and apply the statutory test itself. The Saudi ambassador’s letter did not disclose what meaning of “household” had been applied and could not bind the court.

5. Obiter, the words “in the receiving State” should not be removed from the commercial-activity exception in article 31(1)(c) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Removing them might be logical or desirable, but it was not shown to be necessary to give effect to Parliament’s intention. Accordingly, personal immunity would continue to cover private commercial activity outside the United Kingdom. A binding resolution of that issue was left for a case in which it determined the outcome.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The court dismissed the Princes’ appeal from the rejection of their sovereign-immunity applications: [2013] EWCA Civ 642 .

2. High Court, Chancery Division, Companies Court: Vos J dismissed the applications. He found that neither Prince had proved that he formed part of the King’s household. No citation for that decision is stated.