Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 23 MARCH 2022

Playing For Time – Claiming To Be A Sovereign State – Part 2

In Playing for time – claiming to be a sovereign state, I suggested that the arguments advanced by the Defendant in this case were wholly without merit.

United KingdomLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

In Playing for time – claiming to be a sovereign state, I suggested that the arguments advanced by the Defendant in this case were wholly without merit. Judgment has now been given on the issue as to whether or not the Defendant is a state and on the method of service. The case is AELF MSN 242, LLC (a Puerto Rico limited liability company) v. De Surinaamse Luchtvaart Maatschappij N.V. D.B.A. Surinam Airways  Neutral Citation Number: [2022] EWHC 544 (Comm).  
As indicated previously, in response to AELF's claim, SLM raised a very technical argument that the airline was not served correctly under the English State Immunity Act because the airline is, according to the airline, a sovereign state. I suggested that this argument was wholly without merit and that even if SLM were a state and needed to be served in a specific way, the airline had consented to service of process by the bailiff in Suriname.

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