Orse In the Matter of Wadsworth and R of Spain In the Matter of De Haber and R of Portugal
Property in England, belonging to a foreign sovereign prince in his public capacity, cannot be seized under process in a suit instituted against him in this country on a cause of action arising here, And, therefore, where a suit had been brought in the lord mayor’s court against the Queen of Spain upon bonds of the Spanish Government bearing interest payable in London, and moneys, belonging to her as the Sovereign of that country, had been attached in the hands of garnishees in London to compel her appearance, the Court of Queen’s Bench granted a prohibition.
Although the action was not, in form, brought against the Queen as Sovereign it appearing sufficiently by the proceedings that she was charged with liability in that character. The same law prevails, a fortiori, where the action is avowedly grounded on acts done by the defendant in the character of Sovereign. The garnishee, in such a case, is a proper party to move for the prohibition. And it is no objection, that he has put in a plea (nil habet) to the attachment, Nor is the motion premature, if made after the pleading of such plea and before trial of the issue, though no other excess of jurisdiction is imputed to the lord mayor’s court than its having entertained the suit. The motion may also be made by the sovereign prince who is defendant in the mayor’s court, though such defendant has not appeared, and the gar11isheo has not pleaded. The prohibition may go at the instance of a mere stranger.
(1851) 17 QB 171,  EngR 22
England and Wales
Cited – The Parlement Belge CA 1879
An action in rem indirectly impleaded a sovereign who was the owner of the vessel served because his property was affected by the judgment of the court. An unincorporated treaty cannot change the law of the land and, ‘the immunity of the sovereign . .
Cited – Baccus SRL v Servicio Nacional Del Trigo CA 1956
The defendant organisation carried on business from Spain and was sued in England for damages for breach of a commercial contract. An appearance was entered by their solicitors in London and a consent order made for security for the organisation’s . .
Cited – Aziz v Republic of Yemen CA 17-Jun-2005
The claimant had made a claim for unfair dismissal. The defendant state had filed a defence instead of claiming state immunity. It then sought to assert such immunity. The claimant said the state had waived its immunity.
Held: Section 2(7) of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 January 2022; Ref: scu.227918