H’s unsuccessful appeal against Hayden J’s dismissal of his application to strike out W’s claim for financial remedies on the basis of his diplomatic immunity.
Held
- The Court of Appeal held that the judge had erred in his approach to the immunity issue and had been wrong to hold that H was not, in principle, entitled to immunity from W’s claim for financial relief.
- However, the Court of Appeal held that there was ample evidence on which the judge at first instance could have legitimately concluded that over the past 35 years, H had chosen to maintain his family base in the UK and was therefore permanently resident here. H was not therefore entitled to immunity. He was permanently resident in the UK and W’s claim did not relate to any official act performed by him in the exercise of his diplomatic functions. H’s appeal was therefore unanimously dismissed.
