Page 209 - The Arabian Gulf States_Neat

IMMUNITY FROM FOREIGN JURISDICTION 147
“foreign State" \ he says, ‘as employed in the Rule is to be understood
in this sense.’1 On the other hand, regarding the position of a State
under the protection of a foreign country before British courts, Dicey
seems to be less certain. He thus states:
It is less certain whether a similar immunity is enjoyed by any State under
the protection of a foreign sovereign State as such—for instance, Morocco,
which was until very recently under the protection of France.2
The fact that the Gulf Shaikhdoms are accorded jurisdictional im­
munities before British courts within the meaning of the above-
mentioned Dicey’s rule has very recently been confirmed as a result
of the judgment of the High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division)
in Antoun v. Harrison & Sons Ltd., and Others, of 23 September 1965.3
In this case, Mr Justice Waller gave judgment against granting Mr
Antoun, stamp dealer, ‘an interlocutory injunction to restrain’
Harrison & Sons, Ltd, printers, and the Crown Agents ‘from parting
with possession of Ras al Khaiman stamps printed by Harrisons, or
the proceeds of sale thereof alleged to be now in the defendant’s
possession’. In this judgment His Lordship
also set aside the writ in Mr Antoun’s proposed action and stayed the
proceedings, on the ground that the postage stamps and the proceeds of
sale thereof, the subject matter of the action, were the property of a foreign
sovereign, namely, the Ruler of Ras al Khaimah (Shaikh Saqr bin Muham­
mad bin Salem), and in his possession and control.

Summarising the facts of this case, His Lordship stated that it
arose out of an agreement—the nature of which was in issue—made
between Mr Antoun and the Ruler of Ras al Khaimah, one of the Trucial
States. It made arrangements, to the financial advantage of both parties,
for the sale of stamps from that State, principally to philatelists. The Ruler
had determined the agreement; and the plaintiff was seeking to obtain the
stamps, and money received by the defendants for the sale of the stamps
which was in their hands.
It is interesting to remark that this case establishes an unprecedented
evidence in support of the principle of granting jurisdictional im­
munities to Rulers of the Arabian Gulf Shaikhdoms before English
courts. The portions of the judgment in this case which deal with the
sovereign immunity of the Ruler of Ras al Khaimah, on the basis of
the principles of international law, are as follows:
The principle to be applied in considering the question of sovereign im­
munity had been stated by Viscount Simonds in Rahimtoola v. Nizam of
Hyderabad (1958) . . . where he had cited from Lord Atkin’s speech in . . .
(the) Cristina (1938)... the two principles of international law which were
1 Ibid., p. 134. 3 Ibid., pp. 134-5.
3 The Times, 24 September 1965, p. 15.