In Crane Bank Ltd & Ors v DFCU Bank Ltd & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 886 core issue is the scope and application of the foreign act of state rule and of the limitations and exceptions to which it is subject. The foreign act of state rule in its narrow sense essentially holds that courts should not question the validity of acts taken by a foreign government within that government’s territory – see Reliance. [2] the facts:
The first appellant, Crane Bank Limited (“CBL”), was formerly a major commercial bank in Uganda. The second to seventh appellants are shareholders in CBL. In these proceedings the appellants assert that from about Spring 2016 senior Ugandan government officials and officials of the Bank of Uganda (“the BoU”) engaged in a corrupt scheme to take control of CBL, making improper use of statutory and regulatory powers to do so, and then to sell its assets for the benefit of the parties to the scheme. The appellants allege that the first respondent (“DFCU Bank”), another Ugandan commercial bank, joined the corrupt scheme as purchaser of CBL’s assets from the BoU (acting as receiver of CBL), that purchase being at a gross undervalue. DFCU Bank’s holding company (the second respondent) and certain current and former executives and directors of DFCU Bank (the third to fifth respondents) are also alleged to have joined the scheme
[5] appellants contend that the first instance Judge should have found that there was at least a serious issue to be tried (for the purpose of founding jurisdiction) that:
i) the sale by the BoU (as receiver) to DFCU Bank was commercial rather than sovereign in character, therefore falling outside the foreign act of state rule (“the Commercial Activity Exception”); and/or
ii) all of the executive acts in question engaged the English public policy of combatting and not giving legal protection to bribery and corruption, therefore falling outside the foreign act of state rule (“the Public Policy Exception”); and/or
iii) investigating the acts of bribery and corruption alleged against DFCU Bank in paragraph 69(m) of the Amended Particulars of Claim (“the APoC”) did not require the Court to inquire into or adjudicate on the legality of executive acts of the Ugandan state, and so would not infringe the foreign act of state rule (“the Kirkpatrick Exception”); and/or
iv) the application of the foreign act of state rule in this case would be incompatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and therefore contrary to s.6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (“the Article 6 issue”).
The Foreign Act of State rule is expressed [13] as that courts “will not adjudicate or sit in judgment on the lawfulness or validity under its own law of an executive act of a foreign state, performed within the territory of that state”. It is different from foreign sovereign immunity:“Whereas immunity bars an otherwise good legal claim against a specific person, the foreign act of state rule provides that a claim which falls within it is not a good claim at all as a matter of English law, no matter the identity of the defendant” ([69]).
For his definition, Lord Justice Philipps refers to the Supreme Court in “Maduro Board” of the Central Bank of Venezuela v “Guaidó Board” of the Central Bank of Venezuela [2023] AC 156. Futher reference is made [14] to Yukos Capital for the exceptions:
Yukos Capital (No. 2) [2014] QB 458 at [68]-[115]. For the purposes of the appeal, the following are relevant:
(i) the Public Policy Exception:
“”[T]he doctrine will not apply to foreign acts of state which are in breach of clearly established rules of international law, or are contrary to English principles of public policy, as well as where there is a grave infringement of human rights”. (Oppenheimer v Cattermole [1976] AC 249, 277–278, per Lord Cross; Kuwait Airways Corpn v Iraqi Airways Co (Nos 4 and 5) [2002] 2 AC 883; Yukos Capital (No 2), paras 69-72.)”
(ii) the Commercial Activity Exception:
“The doctrine does not apply where the conduct of the foreign state is of a commercial as opposed to a sovereign character. (Empresa Exportadora de Azucar v Industria Azucarera Nacional SA (The Playa Larga) [1983] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 171; Korea National Insurance Corpn v Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty AG [2008] EWCA Civ 1355; [2008] 2 CLC 837; Yukos Capital (No 2), paras 92-94.)”
(iii) the Kirkpatrick Exception:
“The doctrine does not apply where the only issue is whether certain acts have occurred, as opposed to where the court is asked to inquire into them for the purpose of adjudicating on their legal effectiveness. (Kirkpatrick (1990) 493 US 400; Yukos Capital (No 2), paras 95-104.)”
The appeal was not allowed on the latter exception but it was on the other two, with Phillips LJ giving complete yet concise analysis of such good quality that there is little point in trying to summarise it here: please refer to the judgment.
I will say a little more about the A6 ECHR argument. The discussion here echoes the discussion in SKAT on Dicey Rule 3 and substantive v jurisdictional rules, and Belhaj v Straw [2017] UKSC 3: where Phillips LJ refers to distinction between domestic laws which excluded liability (which do not engage Article 6) and procedural bars (which do). [71] it is held that the result of foreign act of State is that domestic law provides a complete defence to what would otherwise be an actionable (therefore A6 ECHR kosher) claim and [72] that, if a proportionality test were to be introduced in foreign act of State (so as to meet alleged A6 ECHR standards), “it would have a major impact on the rule and its applications”. That latter statement I would suggest does not cut much ice in light of a potential ECHR incompatibility.
There is undoubtedly more to be said however seeing as the appeal was largely successful, no more is to be expected from appellants at least on these issues.
Geert.
gavc law - geert van calster 