Privy Council rules in favour of Tepe in relation to landmark state immunity case

24 Oct 2018 | 04:17 pm | 1 min. read

International law firm Pinsent Masons has secured a successful result for Turkish construction company, Tepe in relation to its landmark US$100 million state immunity case.

The decision handed down by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has far-reaching implications for both States SOEs and those who contract with them.

The case arose out of the attempts to enforce two arbitral awards against crude oil transportation company Botaş. The awards – which had been unsuccessfully challenged by Botas at the seat of the arbitration in Paris – amounted to approximately USD$100 million, and had remained unpaid since they were awarded.

The Privy Council determined that a State cannot invoke sovereign immunity under the 1978 State Immunity Act in respect of assets owned by an SOE which were the subject of enforcement proceedings.  The State asserted that it was ultimately able to exercise control over the assets and therefore the assets were property of the State. The Privy Council found that although Botaş was wholly owned by the Turkish State, its assets were not State Property for the purposes of the SIA.

The Pinsent Masons team was led by international construction partners Mark Roe and Adrian Elliott, and supported by associates Cecile Tangy and Michael Cottrell.

Mark Roe notes the Privy Council's decision has important repercussions for companies which do business with states and SOEs:

"The Privy Council has brought some welcome clarity to the circumstances in which State immunity can be invoked in the English courts. It makes it very clear that assets owned by a SOE are the property of that SOE, and not property of the state.

“The decision highlights the importance of establishing at the outset with whom you contract. The Privy Council has reaffirmed other recent English court decisions that even those SOEs which are subject to very extensive state control retain separate legal personality, even if they appear little more than a mere cypher. In these circumstances you would have no recourse against the assets of the state if it's actually the SOE you've contracted with.

"This decision may also encourage States to place their assets in SOEs. States can confidently place their assets in the ownership of separate entities which they own and are able to exercise a high degree of control over, safe in the knowledge that they are not available for enforcement in the UK by a third party which is seeking to enforce a judgment or award against the state.”

For further analysis on the decision, visit

Key Contacts

Mark Roe

Mark Roe

Partner, Head of International Arbitration

View Profile

Latest press releases

Show me all press releases

Pinsent Masons advises Primary Capital Partners on management buy out

International law firm, Pinsent Masons, has advised Primary Capital Partners on its management buy-out of British engineering company Foster & Freeman.

Pinsent Masons hires two partners in Australia to boost its Finance and Projects team

International law firm Pinsent Masons has appointed partners Mark Waddell and James Morgan-Payler to further enhance the firm's infrastructure and energy practice in Australia and across Asia Pacific.

Pinsent Masons advises on Zagreb Airport refinancing close

International law firm Pinsent Masons has advised Međunarodna Zračna Luka Zagreb (MZLZ) on the c.€200 million refinance of Croatia's Zagreb Airport.

For all media enquiries, including arranging an interview with one of our spokespeople, please contact the press office on

+44 (0)20 7418 8199 or 

Location contacts