Since 2017, a series of judgments has seen multiple states fail in their assertions of adjudicative immunity before the English courts. Only now, however, are we beginning to witness the full implications of those rulings. In the space of four days, both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) were subjected to orders in civil claims that would almost certainly have attracted immunity in other jurisdictions. But every action has a reaction, and it is not simply the denial of immunity that makes these cases so significant; it is the response (or lack of) of the states involved. Rather than contesting the proceedings through appeals, both states have shunned participation. This disengagement has prompted unusually robust judicial criticism and creates uncertainty in the evolution of state immunity jurisprudence.
The first of these judgments was handed down on 22 January 2026 and concerned events in 2013. The claimant, a domestic worker, alleged that she had been trafficked by a UAE diplomat for domestic servitude. Civil proceedings were issued against the UAE on the basis of vicarious liability, and proceedings initiated in 2020.
The UAE refused to engage at any stage. In a 2022 judgment, the court upheld the claim, applying one of the most controversial immunity cases in recent history: Basfar v Wong. In Basfar, a divided Supreme Court held that modern slavery could fall within the ‘commercial activity’ exception to immunity because the diplomat had personally profited from alleged exploitation. In a powerful dissent, Lady Rose questioned whether employment conditions could convert an otherwise ordinary diplomatic employment relationship into a commercial one.
The January 2026 judgment against the UAE dealt with the assessment of damages arising from that earlier ruling. The UAE again did not participate, and the award was substantial, including damages for injury to feelings and exemplary damages.
Four days later, the High Court delivered judgment in Al‑Masarir v Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Like the UAE case, the judgment followed an earlier denial of immunity.
The claimant, a Saudi dissident, alleged that Pegasus spyware was deployed from Saudi Arabia to infiltrate his phone. Saudi Arabia argued that it was immune because the allegations involved sovereign acts, as opposed to private acts, and because the ‘entire tort’ had not occurred in the UK. The court rejected both arguments, holding that the personal injury exception to immunity applies even to sovereign acts, and that only part of the causative conduct need occur within the UK.
The significance of Al‑Masarir cannot be overstated. It creates a gateway to potentially large numbers of claims being brought in England against foreign states for conduct that is of sovereign character and takes place, at least in part, overseas. The interconnected and online nature of the world means that many acts could be deemed to touch on the UK.
Following the first Al‑Masarir judgment, numerous personal injury claims have already been filed, and Bahrain awaits a Supreme Court ruling on related issues. But Saudi Arabia ceased participating in the proceedings some time ago, posing challenges in an adversarial system that depends on parties engaging with the court. It also illustrates a deeper point: this is precisely the situation the doctrine of state immunity was designed to avoid; foreign domestic courts passing judgment on the sovereign acts of other states without their consent. Once the Rubicon of denying immunity has been crossed, a state may conclude that disengagement is the only acceptable response, even though this undermines its ability to defend the claim.
The 26 January judgment against Saudi Arabia addressed both liability and damages. The court granted summary judgment on all claims, concluding that Saudi Arabia was responsible as alleged. Damages exceeded £3m. The judgment was also striking for the strength of its criticism of Saudi Arabia’s conduct, describing its approach to the litigation as ‘unreasonable to a high degree’ and awarding indemnity costs.
These judgments raise practical and strategic issues. For the claimants, the focus now turns to enforcement; a notoriously difficult prospect when the judgment debtor is an unwilling foreign state. Spain, for example, faces numerous enforcement actions and has adopted a policy of resisting them worldwide, demonstrating that a determined state can make enforcement exceptionally difficult.
The UAE and Saudi Arabia will also be reflecting. Both may regard the English courts as having overreached. Whether or not that is justified, it is undeniable that these judgments are exceptional by global standards. In the US, long viewed as the benchmark for immunity jurisprudence, both states would likely have succeeded in asserting immunity. These judgments may prompt both states to reassess their diplomatic and economic engagement with the UK, especially where this exposes assets to enforcement risk.
Some may consider this a price worth paying to ensure access to justice. But the foundational principle of state immunity is that it must be applied irrespective of the nature of the underlying conduct, save where established statutory exceptions apply. Several recent judgments have blurred these lines, creating a confused picture.
The international framework governing state and diplomatic immunity was designed to prevent domestic courts from adjudicating upon the sovereign acts of foreign states without consent. That is not to say that the UK lacks tools to respond to wrongful conduct by foreign states, but traditionally those tools operate on the inter‑state plane.
Finally, the courts themselves will be reflecting. As UK Supreme Court judge Lord Lloyd‑Jones observed in 2022, there has been a ‘quiet revolution’ in the English courts’ engagement with international law. More recently, however, the court has adopted a more orthodox stance, reversing several lower‑court decisions that had restricted immunity.
Nearly five years have now passed since Lady Rose’s prescient dissent in Basfar, in which she warned of the wider implications of such judgments for international comity. The majority decided otherwise, and we are where we are.
Jehad Mustafa is a partner at Farrer & Co
No comments yet