Taurus Petroleum Ltd v State Oilmarketing Company

Leave to appeal may be granted on a discrete issue where the court considers that issue arguable, even though the remaining challenges have no real prospect of success. A stay may be ordered pending an expeditiously prosecuted appeal, with liberty to apply if progress is delayed. The State Immunity Act does not prevent case-management orders connected with such an appeal, including where the underlying decision concerns execution against state property.

The judgment concerned post-judgment applications in proceedings between Taurus Petroleum Ltd and State Oilmarketing Company. The court had previously decided issues concerning SOMO’s legal status, sovereign authority, state immunity, the ownership of property targeted for execution, the construction of a letter of credit, and the scope of CPR Part 57.

Mr Justice Field considered SOMO’s application for permission to appeal and consequential relief. The central question was whether any of the challenged issues had a real prospect of success on appeal, and whether a stay should operate pending determination.

1. Permission to appeal. Leave was granted on the situs of the debt issue. Leave was refused on the other issues because they had no real prospect of success.
2. The court would not grant leave on the issues whether SOMO was a separate legal entity or part and parcel of the Iraqi state, or whether SOMO acted in the exercise of sovereign authority. The relevant principles had been stated by the Privy Council and applied to the facts. The judge also recorded that he had departed from the approach taken by the Court of Appeal in Power Curber.
3. Stay. A stay was ordered pending determination of the appeal. It was conditional upon the appeal being prosecuted expeditiously. SOMO had liberty to apply concerning the progress of the appeal and the lifting of the stay.
4. State immunity and case management. The State Immunity Act did not prevent case-management orders where leave to appeal had been granted against a decision concerning execution against state property. The judge noted that, on the analysis adopted in the earlier judgment, immunity over the Central Bank of Iraq’s property depended on the joint promise made to the Central Bank and SOMO.
5. Costs. Costs were ordered on an issue basis. SOMO succeeded on the separate-entity issue and the sovereign-authority issue, while also succeeding on an issue concerning Central Bank property and on the construction of the letter of credit and CPR Part 57. Taurus was ordered to pay 30 per cent of SOMO’s application costs, subject to standard assessment if not agreed.

The judgment itself concerns permission to appeal from an earlier decision in the same proceedings. No citation for that earlier decision is stated. Leave was granted only on the situs of the debt issue, and a stay was ordered pending an expeditiously prosecuted appeal.