04/02/2026

State immunity no bar to rent arrears claim against foreign State

The County Court at the Mayor’s & City of London Court has decided a jurisdiction challenge against the State of Romania, finding that Romania is not entitled to immunity with respect to a claim for unpaid rent and dilapidations arising under a lease of a London property.

The judgment clarifies the scope of immunity available in rent arrears cases under the State Immunity Act 1978 (“SIA”). It also confirms the approach to be taken to several difficult procedural issues that may arise in litigation against foreign State defendants before English courts.

Background

The claimant, Mr Christodoulou, had a lease agreement with Romania concerning his London property, which from 2008 to mid-2018 was occupied by the Romanian Ambassador and his family. Mr Christodoulou’s claim is for damages for unpaid rent from July 2018 to April 2019 and property dilapidations totalling just under £85,000.

Mr Christodoulou had pursued the rent arrears from Romania since July 2018. He attempted to enforce his rights as a litigant-in-person in 2019 by proceedings. Those proceedings collapsed in 2021, after it became clear that service had not been undertaken in accordance with s.12 SIA, following the Supreme Court’s judgment in General Dynamics [2021] UKSC 22 (which clarified that s.12 SIA imposes a mandatory and exclusive process for serving foreign States).

The current proceedings were commenced in July 2024 against both the (1) Embassy of Romania and (2) State of Romania. Following permission to serve out of the jurisdiction, difficulties in effecting service on the State under s.12 SIA led to a (prospective) application for an extension of the time for service of the claim form. Service of the claim, related documents, permission order, and extension order occurred in July 2025.

Romania made a Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”) Part 11 application seeking a declaration of no jurisdiction and to set aside the permission and extension orders. Mr Christodoulou brought a cross-application to remove the First Defendant (on the ground that the State is the real and only defendant) and to confirm good alternative service of the permission and extension applications by email to Romania’s solicitors. The court dismissed Romania’s jurisdiction challenge and allowed the claimant’s cross-application.

The judgment

State immunity

The court found that claims relating to failure to pay rent and to keep a London property in good repair arising under a tenancy fall within the exceptions to immunity contained in both s.3(1)(b) (contractual obligation to be performed in the UK) and s.6(1)(b) SIA (claim arising out interest, possession, or use of property). It is not relevant to either exception whether the State acquired an interest in the property for “sovereign purposes”.

Further, the court found that the exception to the s.6(1)(b) exception contained in s 16(1)(b) SIA for proceedings concerning a State’s title to or possession of property used for the purposes of a diplomatic mission does not apply to a claim for rent arrears. Even if the property is used for the purposes of the diplomatic mission (the claimant alleged that from July 2018 it was not), s.16(1)(b) SIA only applies to proceedings concerning “title” or “possession” of diplomatic mission property; it does not extend to proceedings relating to “use” of the property such as claims for the payment of rent.

This confirms the approach taken in Intpro Properties v Sauvel [1983] QB 1019 (CA), the only previously reported case on s.16(1)(b).

Service on foreign States

Romania also contested jurisdiction on the basis that it had not been served with the permission to serve out and extension of time for service applications by the diplomatic channels prescribed by s.12 SIA. The earlier application notices and supporting evidence were provided to Romania’s solicitors by email after service of the claim form, particulars of claim, related documents, permission order, and extension order in accordance with s.12 SIA.

HHJ Parfitt dismissed this challenge, clarifying that the compulsory method of service on foreign States pursuant to s.12 SIA only mandates service of documents “required for instituting proceedings”. In this case, that was the claim form and order extending time for its service. There was no requirement to serve the applications leading to the permission and extension orders being made in accordance with s.12 SIA.

The court also confirmed that it had the power to determine that the sending of the earlier applications to Romania’s solicitors by email after service of the claim documents was sufficient service of those applications. This power is not expressly provided for in CPR Part 6 (IV). Abela v Baadarani [2013] 1 WLR 2043 confirmed that such powers can be inferred with respect to alternative service of originating process out of the jurisdiction (against non-State defendants). HHJ Parfitt’s judgment confirms that the same power can be implied for other documents that need to be served following the service of originating process.

Set-aside challenges

HHJ Parfitt also dismissed Romania’s requests for the permission and extension orders to be set aside on grounds including alleged material non-disclosure and that the orders were wrongly made.

Professor Philippa Webb and Sophie Ryan represented the claimant and were instructed by David Vaughan of Shakespeare Martineau Solicitors.

A copy of the Judgment is here: Christodoulou v Romania (CLCC Judgment of 3 February 2026)