The Kingdom of Bahrain v Shehabi and another

Section 5 of the State Immunity Act 1978 removes state immunity where personal injury or tangible property damage is caused by a legally causative act or omission attributable to a foreign state in the United Kingdom. The relevant domestic act need not be the initiating or only cause. Other causative acts may occur abroad.

An act may be performed through mechanical, electrical, automated or remote means. The responsible person need not be physically present in the United Kingdom. Remote manipulation of a computer located here can therefore constitute an act here where it gains access, conducts surveillance or exfiltrates data and legally causes the relevant injury.

The respondents alleged that agents of the Kingdom of Bahrain remotely infected and operated spyware on their computers. The agents and command server were probably abroad, but the respondents and computers were in the United Kingdom. The spyware allegedly enabled intrusive surveillance and data extraction, amounting to harassment and causing psychiatric injury.

The High Court dismissed Bahrain’s application for a declaration of immunity: [2023] EWHC 89 (KB). The Court of Appeal dismissed Bahrain’s appeal: [2024] EWCA Civ 1158; [2025] KB 490.

The Supreme Court considered whether section 5 of the State Immunity Act 1978 applies only where the initiating or responsible act occurred in the United Kingdom, every causative act occurred here, or the responsible actor was physically present here.

1. Appeal dismissed by a majority of three to two. Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Hamblen and Lady Simler held that the pleaded claim fell within section 5 of the State Immunity Act 1978. Bahrain was therefore not immune from the jurisdiction.

2. Section 5 requires an act or omission in the United Kingdom which is legally causative of the relevant injury or property damage. Ordinary principles of causation exclude acts which are too remote, insignificant or non-operative. No additional requirement that the domestic act be more than minimal should be read into the provision.

   The domestic act need not be the initiating, precipitating or only causative act. Where several acts cause the injury, it is enough that a causative act attributable to the foreign state occurred in the United Kingdom. Other causative acts may occur abroad.

3. The word “act” is not confined to the physical movement of a human actor. It includes acts carried out through mechanical, electrical, automated or remote means. Section 5 contains no express requirement that the state agent responsible for the act be physically present in the United Kingdom.

4. Article 11 of the European Convention on State Immunity expressly requires the author of the injury or damage to be present in the forum state. Parliament deliberately omitted that separate requirement from section 5. Article 24(1) permitted the United Kingdom to adopt wider exceptions, subject to customary international law. The principle that domestic legislation should be construed consistently with a treaty could not justify inserting a requirement which Parliament had deliberately omitted.

5. Customary international law did not compel a narrower construction. The majority did not decide whether a territorial tort exception applying to sovereign acts had crystallised as a rule of customary international law. There was, however, a reasonable basis for Parliament to enact such an exception. Even if no such customary exception existed, that would not justify reading a physical-presence requirement into section 5.

6. The alleged infection, operation and manipulation of computers in the United Kingdom, together with the surveillance and exfiltration performed through them, constituted causative acts here. Remote initiation from abroad did not convert those local acts into mere effects. The alleged acts interfered with the United Kingdom’s territorial sovereignty and caused the pleaded injury.

7. Lord Leggatt and Lord Burrows dissented. They considered that an act occurs where its human actor is located and that section 5 should be read consistently with the presence requirement in article 11. On that interpretation Bahrain retained immunity. The majority found it unnecessary to determine the respondents’ alternative case under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

1. United Kingdom Supreme Court: By a majority of three to two, dismissed Bahrain’s appeal and affirmed that the claim fell within section 5 of the State Immunity Act 1978: [2026] UKSC 25 .
2. Court of Appeal: Dismissed Bahrain’s appeal from the High Court: [2024] EWCA Civ 1158 ; [2025] KB 490 .
3. High Court: Julian Knowles J dismissed Bahrain’s application for a declaration of immunity and other relief: [2023] EWHC 89 (KB) .