Court of Appeal rules on state immunity and ECHR compatibility

Background

The Court of Appeal recently delivered a significant judgment in the case between The Kingdom of Spain and Lydia Lorenzo, addressing the compatibility of the State Immunity Act 1978 with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The case, which was heard on 29 January 2025, involved an appeal from the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Legal Arguments

The primary legal issue in this case was whether section 4(2)(a) of the State Immunity Act 1978 was compatible with Article 6 of the ECHR, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. The respondent, Lydia Lorenzo, argued that the section was incompatible not only with Article 6 but also with Article 14 and Article 1 of the First Protocol (A1P1) of the ECHR. The Kingdom of Spain, while making detailed submissions, maintained a neutral stance on the matter.

Submissions from the Secretary of State

The Secretary of State, who did not participate in the appeal itself, acknowledged that the court's previous judgment suggested that section 4(2)(a) was not compatible with Article 6. However, the Secretary of State contended that the conclusions did not support a declaration of incompatibility concerning A1P1 and recommended that any declaration should be limited to Article 6. The Secretary of State also referenced Baroness Hale's observation in R(Wright) v Secretary of State for Health, emphasizing that courts should not advise on legislative amendments required to align with ECHR requirements.

Court's Decision

The Court of Appeal, comprising Lord Justice Bean, Lord Justice Baker, and Lady Justice Andrews, accepted the Secretary of State's submissions. The court declared that section 4(2)(a) of the State Immunity Act 1978 was incompatible with Article 6 of the ECHR. The court found no necessity to explore the theoretical implications of Articles 14 and A1P1 further.

Implications for Costs

Regarding costs, the court addressed submissions from both parties. Although Ms Lorenzo's legal team acted pro bono, the court recognised that a pro bono costs order could be made under section 194 of the Legal Services Act 2007. Consequently, the court ordered The Kingdom of Spain to reimburse Ms Lorenzo's court fee of £626.00 and to make a payment for pro bono costs to the prescribed charity, summarily assessed at £27,500.

Significance of the Ruling

This ruling is significant as it underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring that domestic legislation aligns with international human rights obligations. The declaration of incompatibility serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of upholding the right to a fair trial as enshrined in Article 6 of the ECHR.

Future Considerations

The judgment may prompt legislative review and potential amendments to the State Immunity Act 1978 to ensure compliance with the ECHR. Legal practitioners and policymakers will need to consider the broader implications of this decision on state immunity and human rights law.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in The Kingdom of Spain vs Lydia Lorenzo highlights the ongoing dialogue between domestic law and international human rights standards. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, this case will likely serve as a reference point for future discussions on state immunity and the right to a fair trial.

Learn More

Explore essential areas of UK employment law, including contracts, workplace policies, and discrimination.