Sovereign Immunity

• Author: International Law Group

Dr. Carolsue Holland is a U.S. citizen and a professor of international relations at Troy State University (TSU) in Alabama. TSU is an American institution that also provides extension courses at several military bases abroad including Menwith Hill, an RAF Air Station in England.

The U.S. government runs the base as part of its NATO functions and conducts education and training programs for U.S. Military personnel stationed overseas. It has contracted with TSU to administer the program. James Lampen-Wolfe is another U.S. national. In 1995, the U.S. Department of Defense hired him as a civilian to plan, develop and carry out the educational programs at Menwith Hill.

In 1997, Dr. Holland was teaching international relations on behalf of TSU at Menwith Hill. In March of that year, Mr. Lampen-Wolfe, in his capacity as education services officer at Menwith Hill, sent a memorandum to the University's European Programme Director at its regional office in Germany. The memorandum was captioned "Unacceptable Instructor Performance." It itemized seven complaints about her conduct that a number of her students had sent to him. He regretfully recommended that the director assign another instructor to complete the current course.

Dr. Holland then filed a defamation action against Mr. Lampen-Wolfe in an English court. Defendant moved to dismiss the action on the grounds of sovereign or state immunity. The lower court granted it and gave plaintiff leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) dismissed. [See 1998 International Law Update 121(October, 1998)].

Plaintiff then obtained leave to have the House of Lords review the case. After due consideration, the House of Lords also dismisses plaintiff's appeal. Lord Hope first points out that, in England, two legal regimes bear on the question of foreign state immunity. The first is the State Immunity Act of 1978 which generally retained the immunity of foreign states unless one of the twelve exceptions in the Act applied. Plaintiff here relied upon the Section 3 exception relating to commercial transactions and contracts to be performed in the U.K.

Section 16(2) of the Act, however, disapplies Part I of the Act where the proceedings have to do with "anything done by or in relation to the armed forces of a state while present in the United Kingdom." The second source of law in this area is the English common law. While defendant's function here was not as a military combat or logistics officer, the...