Apex Global Management Ltd v Fi Call Ltd and others [2013] EWHC 587 (Ch), [2013] All ER (D) 202 (Mar)
The proper construction of s 20(1)(b) of the State Immunity Act 1978 was a matter of pure law. Its words had to be construed on normal principles of statutory construction. The words “members of his family forming part of his household” had to be given their normal meaning in the context in which they appeared. It was important that they were used in s 20(1)(b) of the Act to refer to members of a sovereign’s or head of state’s household, not the household of a diplomatic agent. The purpose of the head of state’s immunity was functional: likewise, the personal immunity of a sovereign’s family had to be functional in the same sense. It could not extend to everyone who assisted the sovereign or to everyone who carried out royal, constitutional or representational functions. The question was where the line was to be drawn. The key was to be found in the word “household”. While it would be possible for an adult member of a sovereign’s or head
