Corinna Zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn v His Majesty Juan Carlos Alfonso Víctor

Personal head-of-state immunity under section 20 of the State Immunity Act 1978 is confined to a serving sovereign or head of state. It does not continue merely because a former head of state retains an honorary constitutional status.

Immunity for a family member forming part of a head of state’s household depends principally on the criteria identified in Apex Global Management Ltd v Fi Call Ltd, including dependence. Family relationship, honorary status, past public functions and security arrangements are insufficient without more.

Functional immunity under section 14 requires the relevant conduct to be governmental or sovereign in character, assessed in its full context. Harassment arising from a personal relationship is not transformed into a state act merely because a state official is alleged to have participated. Distress and anxiety, without a recognised psychiatric injury, do not constitute personal injury for section 5.

The claimant brought a claim for damages and an injunction under section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. She alleged a continuing course of harassment by the defendant, a former King of Spain, including surveillance, threats, intrusion into property and defamatory communications.

The defendant challenged the court’s jurisdiction under sections 1(1), 14 and 20 of the State Immunity Act 1978. He argued that he remained a sovereign or a member of the current King’s household and, alternatively, that the alleged pre-abdication conduct was protected functional immunity. The claimant relied on the statutory exceptions for personal injury and argued that the conduct was private.

The central issues were whether the defendant retained personal immunity after abdication, whether he formed part of the current King’s household, and whether any pleaded conduct attracted functional immunity.

1. Personal immunity as sovereign or head of state. The application failed. Section 20(1)(a) confers personal immunity on the serving sovereign or head of state. The word “other” would be redundant if “sovereign” created a separate category extending to former heads of state. Spain has only one sovereign and head of state, namely King Felipe VI. The defendant’s honorary status as King Emeritus did not preserve personal immunity after abdication.
2. Household immunity. Applying Apex Global Management Ltd v Fi Call Ltd, the defendant was not a member of the current King’s household. Dependence was the key criterion. He did not live with the King, did not live in Spain, and had ceased public functions. Treating “household” as equivalent to “family member” would deprive the statutory phrase of meaning. The court would have reached the same conclusion as a matter of construction even without being bound by Apex Global Management Ltd v Fi Call Ltd.
3. Functional immunity. Under section 14, the court had to identify the relevant acts and assess their character in the whole context of the claim. The pleaded course of harassment was not, even arguably, governmental in character. Harassment was conduct which a private citizen could perform. The alleged threats, emails and telephone calls by a high-ranking official did not become state acts without further facts showing that they were undertaken in an official capacity.
4. The alleged Monaco operation required further factual investigation because it was unclear whether it involved CNI operatives or private contractors. A state-sanctioned operation conducted by CNI personnel could raise a different issue, but the pleaded case did not establish immunity. The claimant was directed to clarify that the acts attributed to General Sanz Roldán were alleged to have been performed in his personal capacity.
5. Section 5. The alternative personal-injury argument would have failed. The claim was for distress and anxiety and did not plead a recognised psychiatric injury. Such losses, without more, were not personal injury within section 5.
6. None of the grounds of state immunity was made out. The claim was to continue. Any future difficulty concerning access to evidence or a fair trial would be addressed if it arose.