Alison Macdonald KC For the v Respondent — 2024

This was a public preliminary hearing on whether the Kuwait Investment Authority had immunity from the Tribunal's jurisdiction in Mr Alateeqi's claims. The tribunal proceeded on the factual allegations made by the Claimant for the purpose of the immunity analysis, but made no finding that the Respondent had in fact done the acts alleged or that any act was done for an unlawful reason.

The tribunal held that the KIA was a separate entity within s14(1) State Immunity Act 1978, rather than part of the State of Kuwait itself. It accepted that the KIA had juridical status, its own management and budget, and operational independence, even though it was closely overseen by Kuwaiti ministers and public bodies and managed State assets.

The tribunal nevertheless held that s14(2) applied because the proceedings related to the Claimant's employment as CEO of the Kuwait Investment Office in London, a role to which diplomatic status attached. It found that the Claimant's CEO role and his diplomatic status were functionally indistinguishable, that appointing him to a role with diplomatic status was an act in the exercise of sovereign authority, and that the claim therefore fell within s14(2)(a). On that basis, the KIA was immune and the claim was dismissed.

For completeness, the tribunal also analysed s4 and s16 SIA 1978. It held that the KIO in London was an office maintained in the United Kingdom for commercial purposes, and that Mr Alateeqi was not habitually resident in Kuwait when his contract was made, so s4(3) would otherwise have removed the nationality bar in s4(2)(a). However, it concluded that s16(1)(a) and s16(1)(aa) would exclude s4 in any event because the employment related to a diplomatic agent or member of a diplomatic mission, and that a State would have been immune in those circumstances.