CL-2021-000253 - [2025] EWHC 1189 (Comm)

The 4^th to 6^th Claimants’ application for permission to appeal

The parties do not agree on whether an appeal has a real prospect of success. However, I do not need to decide whether that threshold is passed. In my view, permission to appeal should be granted because the matter in issue presents “some other compelling reason” (CPR 52.6(1)(b)). That is because the issue has implications for state immunity that is not limited to the dispute in question. An issue in relation to the effect of ratification of the ICSID Convention arose in Infrastructure Services Luxembourg SARL v Kingdom of Spain [2025] 1 Lloyd's Rep 66. It was held that Spain had submitted to the adjudicative jurisdiction of the UK court by prior written agreement by virtue of Article 54(1) of the ICSID Convention. In reaching that conclusion, the Court of Appeal identified doubts as to whether the result would be the same under the NYC. This case raises that question for decision. I am told that a further appeal in the Infrastructures Services case is now pending before the Supreme Court. These matters are firmly in the purview of the appellate courts, and this is a case for permission to appeal, therefore. The 4^th to 6^th Claimants have provided draft grounds of appeal, and I give permission to appeal on those grounds.