Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 18 FEBRUARY 2016

In Another Hemisphere: State Immunity In Jersey And Elsewhere Since FG Hemisphere Associates LLC

Carey Olsen
Carey Olsen
Contributor
Carey Olsen

Carey Olsen

With a heritage that dates back to 1898, Carey Olsen is one of the most established and...

View firm profile
Explore more from Carey Olsen

The mere fact of being owned by a sovereign state does not give a Jersey company "sovereign immunity" from legal proceedings.

JerseyLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

The mere fact of being owned by a sovereign state does not give a Jersey company "sovereign immunity" from legal proceedings. As a result, creditors can sue and enforce against a state-owned company's assets, including strategically important assets (such as oil pipeline companies) to obtain payment. In the Jersey case of FG Hemisphere Associates LLC the Privy Council held that a state's debts could not be enforced against companies owned by that state. In Tepe Insat Sanayii AS v Boru Hatlari Ile Petrol Tasima AS (Botas) [2016] JRC 012A, the Royal Court has now considered the reverse question: can state-owned companies avoid liability by claiming state immunity from legal proceedings? In answering "no", the Court held there are two different types of state immunities: immunity from suit prior to judgment, and immunity from enforcement of a judgment obtained. At the same time, the High Court of Australia separately made the same distinction. Surprisingly, applying this

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from