Holland v. Lampen-Wolfe

The House of Lords held that proceedings concerning a memorandum written by a United States education services officer at a United States military base in the United Kingdom were proceedings "by or in relation to" the armed forces for the purposes of section 16(2) of the State Immunity Act 1978 and therefore fell to be determined by the common law rather than Part I of the Act. The act complained of was characterised as iure imperii rather than iure gestionis because it was made in the context of the provision and supervision of educational services to United States military personnel on a United States base. The court held that section 3 of the State Immunity Act 1978 did not assist the claimant because the defamation claim did not properly "relate to" the underlying contract for the supply of services. The House of Lords further held that the European Convention on Human Rights (article 6) did not displace state immunity where international law recognises that immunity.

The appellant (Dr Holland), a United States citizen and university lecturer seconded to teach at Troy State University's courses for United States military personnel at Menwith Hill R.A.F. Station, brought a writ for damages for defamation against the respondent, an education services officer employed by the United States Department of Defense, alleging that a memorandum he wrote was untrue and defamatory. The respondent applied to strike out the writ on the ground that the United States had asserted state immunity on his behalf.

The principal issues before the House of Lords were:

• whether the proceedings fell within Part I of the State Immunity Act 1978 or were excluded by section 16(2) as "by or in relation to the armed forces" present in the United Kingdom;
• if section 16(2) applied, whether the dispute was governed by common law state immunity and whether the act complained of was iure imperii or iure gestionis;
• whether section 3 (the commercial/contractual exceptions) of the State Immunity Act 1978 applied; and
• whether application of state immunity was incompatible with the right of access to the courts under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The House of Lords agreed that section 16(2) applied because the memorandum was written in the course of duties supervising and monitoring educational services provided to United States service personnel on a United States base. The court held that the writing and publication of the memorandum were acts "in relation to" the armed forces and so the statutory Part I exceptions were disapplied, leaving the question to be resolved at common law. On the common law analysis the act was characterised as an exercise of sovereign authority (iure imperii) given the context of maintaining and administering services for the armed forces on the base; the claim was therefore barred by state immunity. The court rejected the contention that section 3 applied because the defamation proceedings did not properly "relate to" the contract for the supply of services. Finally, the House of Lords held that article 6 did not obligate the United Kingdom to exercise jurisdiction it lacked under international law and so did not undermine a valid claim of state immunity.

Procedural posture: the writ was struck out by the Master; that decision was upheld on appeal to the judge and to the Court of Appeal (reported at 1 W.L.R. 188); the appeal to the House of Lords was dismissed.

The appeal was dismissed. The House of Lords held that the memorandum was "by or in relation to" the United States armed forces present in the United Kingdom (section 16(2) SIA 1978), so Part I of the Act was disapplied and state immunity at common law governed. The act was characterised as iure imperii in context and so the proceedings were barred by state immunity; section 3 did not provide an exception, and article 6 ECHR did not displace that immunity.

Writ set aside by the Master; appeals to the judge and the Court of Appeal (reported at 1 W.L.R. 188) dismissed; appeal to the House of Lords [2000] UKHL 40 dismissed.