Anonymized Case Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerned the interpretation of section 5 of the State Immunity Act 1978, which removes state immunity for proceedings concerning death, personal injury, or damage to tangible property caused by an act or omission in the United Kingdom. [Para 18][Para 68][Para 69][Para 70][Para 71]

The Respondents alleged that agents or servants of the Appellant State hacked or infected their computers with spyware from outside the United Kingdom, while the Respondents and their computers were in the United Kingdom. [Para 21][Para 28][Para 29]

The pleaded conduct allegedly enabled access to and exfiltration of information, interception of communications, and surveillance through microphones and cameras, amounting to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. [Para 30][Para 31]

The Respondents alleged that, after learning of the spyware, they suffered psychiatric injury. [Para 32][Para 33]

At first instance, the Appellant State’s application for a declaration of immunity was dismissed; the Court of Appeal also dismissed the appeal. [Para 89][Para 102]

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether section 5 applies only where the act causing personal injury or property damage was the responsible or precipitating act. [Para 117][Para 118]
2. Whether section 5 applies only where every act causing personal injury or property damage occurred in the United Kingdom. [Para 119]
3. Whether section 5 applies only where the author of the injury or damage was present in the United Kingdom at the relevant time. [Para 120]

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant State's Arguments

• The Appellant State argued that section 5 applied only where the responsible or precipitating act occurred in the United Kingdom, or where every causative act occurred in the United Kingdom, or where the author of the injury was present in the United Kingdom. [Para 20]
• It argued that the relevant conduct was initiated from outside the United Kingdom and that technological events on the Respondents’ computers were merely secondary effects, not the causative act for section 5 purposes. [Para 166]
• It also argued that section 5 should be interpreted consistently with article 11 of the European Convention on State Immunity, including a presence requirement. [Para 175][Para 229]

Respondents' Arguments

• The Respondents argued that section 5 requires only a legally causative act or acts in the United Kingdom, even if other causative acts occurred abroad. [Para 128][Para 164][Para 165]
• They contended that, if necessary, the State Immunity Act should be construed consistently with their right of access to a court under article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [Para 129]

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The majority held that section 5 uses straightforward language requiring a legally causative act or omission in the United Kingdom; it does not require “the” act, “all” acts, or the physical presence of the actor in the United Kingdom. [Para 148][Para 149][Para 150][Para 151]

The majority rejected the Appellant State’s argument that section 5 must be limited to the initiating or precipitating act, reasoning that tort claims may involve multiple causative acts and that section 5 should not be read as imposing a different causation test. [Para 166][Para 167][Para 168]

The majority also rejected the argument that every causative act must occur in the United Kingdom, holding that section 5 contains no exclusivity requirement and that other causative acts abroad do not matter if the claimant relies on legally causative acts in the United Kingdom. [Para 163][Para 164][Para 165]

On the presence issue, the majority held that section 5 deliberately differs from article 11 of the European Convention on State Immunity, which expressly includes a presence requirement. [Para 175][Para 229][Para 230][Para 234][Para 240]

The majority concluded that the principle of consistent interpretation did not justify reading a presence requirement into section 5 because Parliament deliberately omitted that requirement. [Para 232][Para 234][Para 235][Para 240]

The majority held that customary international law did not require section 5 to be interpreted with a presence requirement, and that there was at least a reasonable basis for the United Kingdom to enact a territorial tort exception applying to sovereign acts where a relevant act took place in the United Kingdom. [Para 242][Para 243][Para 304][Para 305]

Applying section 5 to the assumed facts, the majority held that the pleaded acts—including installing spyware, running it on devices in the United Kingdom, exfiltrating information, activating cameras and microphones, and recording keystrokes—were acts in the United Kingdom. [Para 410][Para 411][Para 412][Para 413][Para 414][Para 415][Para 416][Para 417][Para 418][Para 419][Para 420]

The majority concluded that the alleged surveillance of persons in the United Kingdom by hacking computers in the United Kingdom involved legally causative acts in the United Kingdom and an interference with the United Kingdom’s territorial sovereignty. [Para 422][Para 423][Para 424][Para 425][Para 442][Para 443]

The dissenting Justices would have interpreted section 5 as requiring the actor’s presence in the United Kingdom, primarily to maintain consistency with article 11 of the European Convention on State Immunity and customary international law. [Para 460][Para 461][Para 686][Para 807][Para 809]

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED. The Supreme Court held that section 5 of the State Immunity Act 1978 applied on the assumed facts, so the Appellant State was not immune from the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom courts. [Para 444][Para 445][Para 442][Para 443]

The direct consequence is that the Respondents’ claims may proceed despite the Appellant State’s assertion of state immunity. [Para 444][Para 445]

Because the appeal was dismissed under section 5, the Court did not need to decide the Respondents’ alternative article 6 access-to-court argument. [Para 445]